#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Exporting Democracy
President Obama has taken a firm stance on exporting democracy. He has taken an active role in ending the tyranny in Libya, and has criticized other leaders for their violence against protesters.
Should the United States and other western Nations mind their own business? Should we do everything we can to end dictatorships around the world? What say you?
Support the revolutions
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Mind our own business
Side Score: 8
|
|
I support this side in addition to having a very strong skepticism of supporting revolutions. The most important part of American intervention would be the firm commitment to place no troops on the ground. We have seen what troops on the ground does to the local morale and view of our troops (i.e. they become "invaders" true or otherwise). The second part of American intervention would be to limit our intervention to aid/supplying of arms to the revolutionaries, unless human rights as established by the Geneva Conventions are about to be violated pending foreign military intervention. Again, we cannot attempt to prop up some democracy supported solely by American or foreign firepower. It simply is not sustainable and quite likely to increase political corruption. The third part is really just a prerequisite for intervention: understanding the parties involved. We cannot support our own agenda without the consent of those whom we're asserting our agenda upon. In other words, unless we understand the ramifications of what will happen if Gaddafi or Hussein seize power, we do not attempt to intervene or support either side. It's the rights of all people to choose their own government, and to be able to participate in the governing of their lives. It seems to me that is the fundamental basis of a democracy, so yes we should support those revolutions which appear to set this as the goal. Side: Support the revolutions
|
1
point
Our interference constitutes, in my mind, irresponsible meddling. We don't really know who these rebels are, what motivates them besides their opposition to Gaddafi, what their policies are, and whether or not they actually intend to establish a democratic government. We have been reckless enough to declare our unflinching support for what constitutes an armed group of dissidents, for the sole reason that we share a common enemy. Our enmity with the Colonel, however, is not born of long years under the oppressive yoke of a tyrant, but is rather our ingrained moral objection to any form of governance which differs from our own democracies. Side: Exercise caution
While I agree that we need to be aware of what kind of people the revolutionaries are and what their motives are, I can see why Americans in general support helping such revolutions. In our own revolution, Americans received foreign aid from the French. So the thought is that we can do the same for these other nations and their peoples. Side: Mind our own business
1
point
Firslty i feel your characterisation of President Obamas response to be deeply flawed. "I can see why Americans in general support helping such revolutions." Yes americans do support the revolutions the problem is your government doesn't, this fact is clearly demonstrated in the way they dealt with the uprisings and how they refused to speak out against the repression in Yemen and Bahrain. "In our own revolution, Americans received foreign aid from the French. So the thought is that we can do the same for these other nations and their peoples" My God, you actually beleive that? Jesus (thats right two religious profanities) your world must be very simple indeed, you have the good guys (you and US army) on one side and on the other side you have the bad guys (Islam, most of the rest of the non western world). How can you beleive this garbage in the face reality. Again let me remind you of the position of the US with regard to Egypt: This was the US position prior to the protests: http://telegantmess.tumblr.com/post/ This was the US position in the first few weeks of the protests before they realised Mubarak had to go do to the scale of the uprising: Then thers Tunisia, they didnt even support their revolution, in fact they supported their puppet dictator, why do you think that is? Incase you need reminding: I refer you to the section "the United States Remains Silent": And then thers Iraq, you know that place you brought democracy to by completely destroying the country, killing 1 million people in the most recent war, so if you brought democracy to the country and free and fare elections then why are the people revolting against the washingtons puppet government: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ "He has taken an active role in ending the tyranny in Libya, and has criticized other leaders for their violence against protesters." You need to change this to the following in order for it to have some basis in reality: "He has taken an active role in securing a stake in future oil deals as he probably dreaded the thought of British and French companies having priority, and although he has been forced by the arab spring to publicly denounce the violence of the regimes, which the administration has provided such unflinching support to trying to, which are trying cling to the kind of iron fisted rule washington loves (as they expliot the people and allow washington to hover up the resources) in secret he is worried that these countrie may actually gain some sort of independence which would allow them to shake off western (mainly US) imperialism that has plagued the region for too long." There, much better, dont you agree? I mean at least now its not based on a complete fiction that only exists inside the minds of indoctrinated americans such as yourself. Side: Support the revolutions
My God, you actually beleive that? Jesus (thats right two religious profanities) Do you honestly think I care about religious profanities? your world must be very simple indeed, you have the good guys (you and US army) on one side and on the other side you have the bad guys (Islam, most of the rest of the non western world). http://www.answers.com/topic/straw-man "A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." That's a straw-man argument if I ever saw one. I don't recall ever making such a bold claim....ever. I have never said Muslims were the bad guys. I have never said the non-western nations were the bad guys. Nor have I implied either of these. Matter of fact I have never said that the US government nor the US Army were the good guys. Where have I ever talked about good guys vs bad guys? You are putting words in my mouth to make your argument look better. That you have to resort to such pathetic tactics, shows how untenable your argument actually is. Again let me remind you of the position of the US with regard to Egypt. This was the US position prior to the protests. "prior to the protests" seems to be the critical phrase here. How can we either support or oppose a revolution that didn't yet exist? How can you say we opposed a revolution when it didn't yet exist? The US did give Egypt monetary aid. Egypt was a major US ally in combating terrorism, we sent them aid under the conditions that they continue their anti-terrorism efforts and to ensure the peace between Egypt and Israel. When we saw popular will turn against Mubarak, then we started to re-evaluate our aid to Egypt. http://telegantmess.tumblr.com/post/ You've got to be kidding me? Your evidence is a blog? You won't accept what US intelligence officials say, but you cite what a blogger says as evidence? At least keep your skepticism consistent, man! Can I write a blog, and cite my own blog as evidence? {Laughs} http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ Okay, Let's look at your article: (First sentence) "THE US has called for an "orderly transition" to a new government in Egypt but stopped short of demanding President Hosni Mubarak step down as protests engulf his regime." This doesn't say that the US isn't supporting the protestors, it's arguing that the US isn't supporting the protestors ENOUGH by specifically calling for Mubarak to step down. You are completely mis-characterizing your own sources. Then thers Tunisia, they didnt even support their revolution, in fact they supported their puppet dictator Bullshit http://www.whitehouse.gov/ I refer you to the section "the United States Remains Silent" No only is this false, as demonstrated by my link above, even if it were true it would still be a terrible argument. If remaining silent constituted supporting of dictatorships, I wonder how many dictatorships your country is supporting right now, Gary! And then thers Iraq The country in which we overthrew their genocidal dictator? Probably not a good example, eh? http://english.aljazeera.net/news/ You're an idiot. This article talks about a protest which resulted in the Resignation of a GOVERNOR. His resignation was supported by the Iraqi Prime Minister. How is an Iraqi governor a "US puppet" dictator? Do you even read your own links? He has taken an active role in securing a stake in future oil How does instating a no-fly zone over Libya, in anyway secure our stake in future oil? This is complete nonsense. As it stands, we are only getting only getting $1.7 billion in oil from Libya per year, yet are spending about 2 times that amount ($2.6 Billion) every day in maintaining a no-fly zone. It wouldn't make any economic sense whatsoever if Oil was the motivation, so you are forced to invent some other bullshit conspiracy theory. Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/20/ in secret he is worried that these countrie may actually gain some sort of independence And I suppose you are privy to what they say or believe in privacy? I would ask you for evidence, but if you had evidence for this, then it wouldn't be very secret then, would it? = You have no evidence I mean at least now its not based on a complete fiction And the claim that we support the overthrow of Gaddafi for the oil (which is mathematically impossible) isn't based on complete fiction? Your argument has far too many holes. I don't buy it. Side: Mind our own business
1
point
"That's a straw-man argument if I ever saw one. I don't recall ever making such a bold claim....ever. I have never said Muslims were the bad guys. I have never said the non-western nations were the bad guys. Nor have I implied either of these. Matter of fact I have never said that the US government nor the US Army were the good guys. Where have I ever talked about good guys vs bad guys? You are putting words in my mouth to make your argument look better. That you have to resort to such pathetic tactics, shows how untenable your argument actually is." Actually i was using reductio ad absurdum, taking your views to there logical conclusion in roder to show how ridiculous they are, i will admit i was stretching given that you have never expressed such extreme views on this site, but it wasn't really mean to be taken seriously, although with hindsight i can see why you did. I am sorry if i have offended you i wasn't trying to characterise that way so please dont think i using this as so sort of a tactic. ""prior to the protests" seems to be the critical phrase here" I can't understand why you are so reluctant to beleive that your government would not want their puppet to stay in power, i mean can you not even entertain the idea, once you do and then you observe their actions you begin to see things as they are instead of trying to rationalise inexplicable events that dont quite fit in with your own view of reality. "Egypt was a major US ally in combating terrorism," Egypt was a brutal dictatorship please dont try to act like they are some kind of force fighting the evils in the world, your war of terror if you ever look into it has killed more people and caused more human suffering than any terrorist could ever hope to accomplish, but im sure you've kept those facts well hidden from yourself. "we sent them aid under the conditions that they continue their anti-terrorism efforts and to ensure the peace between Egypt and Israel." Again this is all mixed up, firstly your were sending aid to Mubarak regimes, just like you do with all the others(i.e. all the other puppet dictators you prop up), the people were seeing very little of the so called aid you were sending and i think that is demonstrated by the recent events. Then theres Isreal, the fact is the treaty with Isreal was never really about peace, they knew they had take Egypt out of the equation as Egypt is the largest Muslim country in the middle east, and the only one with the power to actually stand up to Isreal, look at how Isreal has colonised Palestian land since the treaty was signed, and ask yourself the reasoning behind getting Egypt out of the conflict, again this is not a radical viewpiont although for you it probably is. "You've got to be kidding me? Your evidence is a blog? You won't accept what US intelligence officials say, but you cite what a blogger says as evidence?" The blog using US cables to back up its claims, i was hoping you'd tell me why it was wrong, but fare enough i understand why you are sceptical. "At least keep your skepticism consistent, man! Can I write a blog, and cite my own blog as evidence?" No, but if you had US diplomatic cables to back up the claims you were making id listen to you. "This doesn't say that the US isn't supporting the protestors" Yes thats because the US would never be caught saying such a thing, when a countries population suddenly rises up against a tyrant that you have supported for 30 years you dont come out and back the tyrant, especially if you want to keep up the false pretence that you are for democracy. I think if you look clearly at the washington reaciton to the arab spring you will see that they are not in support of it. Ask yourself why would they be, what does it mean for washington not to have these leaders doing there bidding anymore, to actually have to deal with real peopls democracies, they would be thrown out of those countries, forced to dismantle many of their military bases, and there priveleged access to the oil would be no more, how can you not see this. Ok you obviiusly (falsely) beleive that washington is for the revolutions, what makes you think they would be. "it's arguing that the US isn't supporting the protestors ENOUGH by specifically calling for Mubarak to step down. You are completely mis-characterizing your own sources." No im really not, look at the history of US backed tyranny and you will see that this is exactly how washington acts everytime one of their puppet dictators is about to be overthrown. I gave you list in my response the other debate (check out that reponse as well) here it is again, there are many more examples than this, these were just the ones that came to mind: President Simosa in Nicuragua President Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines President Chun in South Korea President Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti President Soharto in Indonesia Pinochet in Chile Now when each of these dictators were being overthrown the story was the same, support him right up until it becomes apparent that his position is untenable, then denounce him and try to install the same regime under different leadership with a new name. This is what you have done, why do you think you are doing any different now. "Bullshit" Far from it my friend far from it. "http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Your source proves my piont entirely, look at the date of the press release Jan-14-11, but when did the protests against Ben Ali start check my previous source they started on 17-dec-10, and guess when they finished, do you want to take a guess, ill tell, they finished (i.e. Ben Ali was forced to step down) on the exact date washington was forced to support the revolution i.e. 14-Jan-11. Now what does that tell you, i know you'll come up with some ridiculous rationalisation but this is what it tells me and any other non indoctrinated person. Washington was waiting it out to see if their puppet leader could quell the resistance, remember this was the first revolt in the arab spring so as they saw it they could just wait until he ended the protests and let everything settle back down, as i hope you read in my previous article, this was kept out of all mainstream american media, and you can be sure this was intentional. So what say you now the very article you send me only supports the my proposition i.e. the US supports there dictators until their position becomes untenable then they denounce them preten to support democracy while secretly plan to prop back up the old regime with a new figurehead as leader and new name. "No only is this false, as demonstrated by my link above, even if it were true it would still be a terrible argument. If remaining silent constituted supporting of dictatorships, I wonder how many dictatorships your country is supporting right now, Gary!" I think we both know your showing signs of desparation when you accuse my country of supporting dictators for remaining silent, the fact is my country has not led any cia coups and funded the minority of the eiltes in a multitude of nations in order that they institute a tyrannical regime, my country has not funded and backed militarily some of the worst dictators of the 20th century, even you must be able to see how ridiculous this notion is. "The country in which we overthrew their genocidal dictator? Probably not a good example, eh?" I seem to remember it was you who propped up said dictator, funded said dictator, and provided said dictator with his arsenal. In fact i seem to remember him being your close ally before he invaded Kuwait which was after he committed the genocide against the Kurds, you say this as an argument to support you, can you not see how it is an argument against you, do you not think washington knew that he was killing the Kurds in mass numbers when they were sending him weapons, are you that close minded, for fucks sake you probably supplied him with the gas he used in the fuckin Kurds. Now that aside you cannot ignore what you have done to that country, you have brought from being one of the most modern in the middle (pre Gulf 1) to one of the worst in the middles east (go ahead look it up). You have killed millions in that country, yes millions, (1/4 of million were killed in Gulf 1, at least 500,000 children were killed due to the inhuman sanctions imposed by your administration: http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/ and then theres the real death of toll of Iraqis, in 2006 the Joh Hopkins survey widely beleive to be the most credible put the death toll at roughly 600,000, i.e. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/ Now i have been discredited many time for saying the true death toll is 1 million, but the fact is it is most liekly even higher than this i.e. http://www.guardian.co. I would also like to say that the lanchet survey carried out by the John Hopkins university is the widely beleive to be the most accurate as it is the only survey to use an effective scientific method in analysing the body count. Now the fact still remains, the people are revolting against your puppet government, and you can be sure washington doesnt like it. "You're an idiot. This article talks about a protest which resulted in the Resignation of a GOVERNOR. His resignation was supported by the Iraqi Prime Minister. How is an Iraqi governor a "US puppet" dictator? Do you even read your own links?" Yes i do read thorugh my own links. I have stated that the people are revolting against washingtons puppet government, and you come back and tell meits all about the resiggnation of a governor, BTW the way i think you'll find if you read my original post i never said the Iraqi government was a puppet dictatorship, i said it was washingtons puppet government (which i stand by), but nice try. Since you refuse to take the article seriously i will piont out to you why i posted it: "Hundreds of Iraqis have converged on Baghdad's Liberation Square as part of an anti-government rally named the Day of Rage, organised mainly through the social networking website Facebook." Anti-government rally, that tells me they're not happy with your puppet government. "The protests also stretched from the northern city of Mosul to the southern city of Basra, reflecting the widespread anger many Iraqis feel at the government's seeming inability to improve their lives." Again demonstrating the deep disatisfaction with the government backed by washington. "In Mosul, hundreds of protesters gathered in front of the provincial council building, demanding jobs and better services, when guards opened fire, a police official said" Sounds like the kind of regime washington supports alright, incidently 3 poeple were killed, just thought id piont that out. "Like many Iraqis, he railed against a government that locks itself in the highly fortified Green Zone, home to the parliament and the US. embassy, and is viewed by most of its citizens as more interested in personal gain than public service. "The government of the Green Zone is terrified of the people's voice,'' he said." I don't think i even need to explain this one. "How does instating a no-fly zone over Libya, in anyway secure our stake in future oil? This is complete nonsense." He is supporting the rebels (as are Britain and France) so that when they topple Gaddafi and take power the lucrative oil delas will go to US, British and French Companies, its really not that harfd to figure it out when your mind isnt clouded with nationalism. "As it stands, we are only getting only getting $1.7 billion in oil from Libya per year, yet are spending about 2 times that amount ($2.6 Billion) every day in maintaining a no-fly zone." I know this argument seems to make sense to you but your missing something very fundamental, were is the money going, the fact is war is profitable for the rich. Oil edals etc. etc. benefit the rich, the elite, the people of america are picking up the tab on Libya my friend, but they wont see a whole lot of the spoils of war from that conflict, you can be sure of ti. It is obviously a hell of lot more complex than this but to use that argument as a justification for how the intervention isn't about oil, control and imperialism only shows again how indocrintaed you are and how willing you are to believe the lies. "It wouldn't make any economic sense whatsoever if Oil was the motivation, so you are forced to invent some other bullshit conspiracy theory." I assure you although much i what i say may seem like a conspiracy theory to you, it is well gorunded in reality, it isnt always correct but i can tell you its more correct than what you beleive. Now you may think that it doesnt make economic sense to be in Libya, but i sure you could do similar calculation on the cost of the Iraq war, i mean i dont think its been very profitable for the US population to have invaded Iraq, so who has it been profitbale for, you guessed the US corporations that own your government, the elites, the sooner you wake up and accept realit the sooner you may be able to deal with the 9 inch dildo being inserted into your anus on a daily basis my friend. "And I suppose you are privy to what they say or believe in privacy? I would ask you for evidence, but if you had evidence for this, then it wouldn't be very secret then, would it?" Why do you deny this, can you not see that independence in the middle east will lead to the US losing everything they have accpuired in the region, these are resource wars, and the mobilisation of the people terrifies the people who are benefiting from them being oppressed i.e. wsashington (various other western countries), and the dictators and eiltes who make up about 1% of the population. "= You have no evidence" Yes yes you have your rationalisation, its okay go back to bed it was all a dream, go back to bed america your government is on control, heres some american gladiators, you are free to do as we tell you, you are free to do as we tell you. Bill Hicks RIP "And the claim that we support the overthrow of Gaddafi for the oil (which is mathematically impossible) isn't based on complete fiction? Your argument has far too many holes. I don't buy it" I never expected you to, but now that you have been exposed to it you may start to notice its accuracy.Also i like how you only responded to my claims about Egyp, Iraq and Tunisia, you just left Yemen and Bahrain, is this because you know they are indefensible so you selectively exclude them? Who are trying to kid, oh wait i know. Side: Support the revolutions
First of all I'd like to say that you need to learn how to bold. Your posts look like a cluttered mess, nobody is going to read that. Second of all, You need to stop putting words in my mouth. Stop pretending you know what I mean more than I do. If that is what I meant, then I would have said it. If You don't know what I mean, then ask. That is a pretty dishonest debate tactic, and anybody who reads this is going to see how desperately you are trying. I can't understand why you are so reluctant to beleive that your government would not want their puppet to stay in power. See that's part of the problem. You don't know my position, so you are unable to argue against it. I'm not saying that the US government doesn't want it's puppet governments to stay in power. I'm disputing your notion that they even are puppet Governments. Before we continue, I'm going to need you to define "Puppet Government". We can't have a meaningful argument until we have a mutual understanding of the terms used. Now onto the subject of whether or not the US is supporting dictatorships. First I would like to point out that there are a lot of dictatorships in the world. Here's a list if you don't believe me: Afghanistan – Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan Algeria – Abdelaziz Bouteflika, President of Algeria Angola – Mr. Jose Eduardo dos Santos, President of Angola Azerbaijan – Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan Bahrain – King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, King of Bahrain Belarus – Aleksandr Lukashenko, President of Belarus Brunei – Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah Burma – Than Shwe, General of Myanmar (Burma) Cambodia – His Majesty King Norodom Sihamoni, King of Cambodia Cameroon – Paul Biya, President of Cameroon Chad – Idriss Deby, President of Chad China – Hu Jintao, President of China Congo, Dem. Rep. of – Isidore Mvouba, Prime Minister of Congo Côte d’Ivoire – Laurent Gbagbo, President of Cote d’Ivoire Cuba – Raul Castro, President of Cuba Djibouti – Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, President of Djibouti Egypt – Hosny Mubarak, President of Egypt Equatorial Guinea – OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO, President Eritrea – Isaias Afwerki, President of Eritrea Ethiopia – Girme Wolde Giorgis, President of Ethiopia Gabon – Albert-Bernard Bongo, President of Gabon Iran – Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, President of Iran Iraq – Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq Jordan – King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein, King of Jordan Kazakhstan – Nursultan Nazarbaev, President of Kazakhstan Laos – Lieutenant General Choummaly Sayasone, President Libya – Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, Leader of Libya Myanmar (Burma) – Soe Win, Prime Minister of Myanmar (Burma) North Korea – Kim Jong-il, President of North Korea Oman – Qaboos bin Said Al-Said, Prime Minister of Oman Qatar – Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al-Thani Russia – Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, President of Russia Rwanda – Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda Saudi Arabia – King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia Somalia – Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, President of Somalia Sudan – Omar H.A. Al-Bashier, President of Sudan Swaziland – Mswati III, King of Swaziland Syria – Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria Tajikistan – Emomalii Rahmon, President of Tadjikistan Tunisia – Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, President of Tunisia Turkmenistan – Gurbanguly BERDIMUHAMEDOW, President of Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates – Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan Uzbekistan – Islam Abdughanievich Karimov, President of Uzbekistan Vietnam – Nguyen Minh Triet, President of Vietnam Yemen – Ali Abdallah Salih, President of Yemen Zimbabwe – Robert (Gabriel) Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe Now, with a country like the United States, a country very much involved in international politics, and very much involved in international trade, it would be nearly impossible to conduct any business on an international level without dealing with some of these dictatorships. If you really wanted to argue that any relations with these Nations could be considered a 'support' of them, you could certainly do that. I think where the argument arises is what kind of relations constitutes "support of dictatorship". There is a thin line between supporting a Nation, and supporting it's leader or it's style of government. So where exactly do we draw this line? If we look at Egypt, for example. Egypt has been a strong US ally in fighting radical sectarianism in the region. By fighting radical sectarianism, this mutually helps both Americans and Egyptians. One of the ways we did this was by giving Egypt the resources to fight this Radical Sectarianism, but could it be argued that because Mubarak was a dictator that by giving Egypt these resources we are also supporting a dictatorship? Some of these resources we give Egypt are little more than a bribe to keep them from attacking Israel an old enemy of Egypt. In many other countries there is a similar situation going on. This isn't nearly as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be. Your attempt to paint the United States as an evil empire, which supports dictatorships and the oppression of foreign people for money and power....is a grossly naive and vastly oversimplified view of the world. This is what I dispute. The United States is far from perfect, but the wrongdoings of my Nation have more to do with trying to do the right thing the wrong way, than intentional power grabbing. I know this argument seems to make sense to you but your missing something very fundamental, were is the money going, the fact is war is profitable for the rich. Oil edals etc. etc. benefit the rich, the elite, the people of america are picking up the tab on Libya my friend, but they wont see a whole lot of the spoils of war from that conflict, you can be sure of ti. It is obviously a hell of lot more complex than this but to use that argument as a justification for how the intervention isn't about oil If you're going to say that war profiteering was the motivation, then why even posit oil at all? The $1.7 billion a year would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $18.2 billion a week that is being spent (or earned according to your theory) on maintaining a no-fly zone. Then again, if war profiteering was the motivation, then it wouldn't really matter what country it was in. Not to mention you still haven't provided any evidence for EITHER of these motives. Precisely the same amount of evidence other conspiracy theories have. Zero. Why do you deny this The same reason why I deny Santa Claus, 9/11 "inside job" conspiracies, the bogey man, Bigfoot, alien abductions, government mind control, ancient astronauts, the tooth fairy, and the Illuminati world rulers.......because there is no evidence. Side: Mind our own business
1
point
Second of all, You need to stop putting words in my mouth.Stop pretending you know what I mean more than I do In fairness you've done this to me on many occasions also, its just after reading each others views you start to infer certain things, and then they find their way onto the posts, i will try to keep it to a minimum in future. That is a pretty dishonest debate tactic, I assure you it was unintentional as im sure it was in your case. I'm not saying that the US government doesn't want it's puppet governments to stay in power. I'm disputing your notion that they even are puppet Governments.Before we continue, I'm going to need you to define "Puppet Government". We can't have a meaningful argument until we have a mutual understanding of the terms used. Ok, i hadn't realised this, i will try to explain exactly what i mean. When i say puppet government (or dictatorship) i am taking about a regime that is backed (in various ways) by another country and is subservient to that countries interests over the interests of its own population. Now please dont think this is a blank and white definition, these puppet governments are subservient in varying degrees. I mean, an argument could even have been made before the recent Libyan conflict that colonel Gaddafi was a western puppet dictator (albeit a much more volatile one and no the kind they like). Now the US has dealings with many different forms of puppet governments(most of which they exert massive control over), more so than any other nation. When i say your puppet government ( or dictatorship) i mean a government or dictatorship that is primarily sebservient to your interests over those its its population.When i say your i dont just mean the american government, it is in fact often more related to the interests of american multi national corporations, but they effectively control your government so ill just stick with the word "your" as a balanket statement that means both. Now in order to give you a flavour of the various forms of these governments i shall list some examples: 1. Chile In this case you carried out a very popular form of overthrow which is basically centred around arming the military, as we both know more often than not the military are the ones who oeverthrow governments. The you made it hard for the government to function creating economic chaos in the country, then the military comes in (backed by you) and restores order. This is how Pinochet's was created by you, this is classic example. The reason i bring this case up is that you had already tried many other classic forms of subversion before you had to resort to a paid military coup. You tried to buy off the Chilean congress in order to prevent democratically elected Salvador Allende from becoming president, then you tried to have him exiled from the country, then you tried to sway public opinion against him in the build up to the election, you tried many forms of economic terrorism (surely i dont need to explain this general term, it takes many forms and is basically how you use your economic power to torture smaller nations into accepting your demands) in order to get him to resign, but all this failed and you had to resort to a violent overthrow. I feel this example captures the many forms of subversion instituted by the Us on smaller nations. Please feel free to do some further research on this coup its one of the very few that actually has much if the clandestine info. available in the public domain. 2.Nicaragua This is another very fine example of the lengths the US government are willing to go in order to crush freedom and democracy in other countires, they really cant have any subservient coutnries setting a bad example.In this case a very popular peoples democracy (the Sandanistas) was attacked by the US proxy army (the contras) whose generals were trained at the notorious scholl of the americas. This scholl of the americas is a very interesting place, its where all the biggest mass murders and dictators of the various latin amercan countries were trained in terrorism, pinochet was a graduate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ End I could go on citing the littany of examples from the south american continent but i feel there too easy(seriously name a country in south america and ill tell you exactly why and how you fucked it up intentionally for your own personal gain, not only will i tell you why but i will cite reliable soruces rpoving this), you need to get an idea of how washingtons tentacles stretch far and wide and how their motivations are never altruist. Before i leave south america i will leave you a few links to research papers: This is a very comprehensive paper which details how US foreign aid to south america countries is linked to human rights abuses i.e. the countries with the worst rulers and greatest instances of human rights violations receieve the most aid: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2111142 Another paper detailing the same: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/21/3/ These papers are not recent, also in order to read them fully you must pay or subscribe to the site which isnt free either. Ill try to keep the rest brief, as i am aware you dont want to have to read too much and god knows i dotn want to have to write it. 3.Philippines This has benn an established US colony for a long time, US support for horendous dictators has been unwavering sice 1901. Particularly President Marcos, who was a mass murderer. 4.Indonesia You (and the West) were complicit in supporting President Soharto, despite his massacre of the people of east timor. Please watch: http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/ http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/ Saddam Hussein I just decided to throw this in given that you never reponded to it previously, and had the guile to question my use of it as an example, the following is an excerpt from an article in the Toronto star after the dictator was captured: "12/21/03: (The Toronto Star) All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal. An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991. At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times. Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam. With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support" End Now i could go on and on explaining the various dictatorships and governments that classfiy as being US puppets, the various ways in which you supported them and made sure they came to power and the various ways this has caused great inculable suffering and death for the populations but i think if you reall do consider yourself impartial you can investigate this for yourself and make your own mind up, you assertion that the US must participate in trade with dictatorships is merely masking the truth of your involvement with them. If you really wanted to argue that any relations with these Nations could be considered a 'support' of them, you could certainly do that. Well if you define relations as meaning propping them, ensuring they come to power (most of the time in a completely undemocratic manner to say the least in fact that dooest even due justice to the kinds of crimes you have committed in ensuring your puppet takes control) , then raping that country of all its resourcces while its people suffer greatly then yes that what i call support. I think where the argument arises is what kind of relations constitutes "support of dictatorship". Dont get me wrong there are plenty of savage dictatorships you havent supported, or not supported as much as others or whatever, in those cases though it has nothing to do with the fact that they are undemocratic,or despotic, or commit human rights abuses, in those cases its just not within your strategic interest. "There is a thin line between supporting a Nation, and supporting it's leader or it's style of government. So where exactly do we draw this line?" It reall doiesnt matter where the fuck you draw the line you can be sure that your great nation will be very very far across on the wrong side of it, ive made my position very clear on this. "If we look at Egypt, for example. Egypt has been a strong US ally in fighting radical sectarianism in the region. By fighting radical sectarianism, this mutually helps both Americans and Egyptians. One of the ways we did this was by giving Egypt the resources to fight this Radical Sectarianism, but could it be argued that because Mubarak was a dictator that by giving Egypt these resources we are also supporting a dictatorship? " Listen to your inane rationalisations, you must. Egyp was never a US ally by chioce you installed a puppet (Saddat) who was assassinated by Islamic Jihad (or Al Queda before you gave them that name), this puppeet was replaced with another puppet. There was nothing democractic about this, Mubarak took Egyp out of the conflict with Isreal, and signed a peace treaty (ha, PEACE treaty the fucking hypocrasy) that ended Eygpts war with Isreal which allowed Isreal to colonise Palestian land effectively unchallenged for the next 30 years. Mubarak was given 70 billion personally over the course of his tenure as president, you funded the army, the people were given nothing, Mubarak has also a brutal dictator lets not forget, he had what i would call a mild police state in the sense that tirture and executionf by the police force were commonplace. "Some of these resources we give Egypt are little more than a bribe to keep them from attacking Israel an old enemy of Egypt. In many other countries there is a similar situation going on." Well at least we can agree slightly on something, although id go a hell of lot further than this. "This isn't nearly as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be." I will admit i may be painting a fairly black and white picture but i reall feel as though nothing i am saying is being overly critical, when i read what you think it strikes me as being pure washington fantasy. Trying to make out that US motivations are good, and somewhat altruistic is the height of lunacy and only demonstrates your indoctrination. I admit not everything the US has done internationally is bad (the US government now, the corporations are rarely responsible for anything good) but when it was doing anything good it would be very nieve to think that it wasn't in its own best interests to do so. "Your attempt to paint the United States as an evil empire, which supports dictatorships and the oppression of foreign people for money and power....is a grossly naive and vastly oversimplified view of the world. This is what I dispute" I know thats why im debating you, take my word for pal in the majority of world is on my side, at the least the people who are educated enough to realise how badly fucked they've been by your countries foreign policy, economic institutions that are effectively controlled by american interests e.g. World Bank, IMF, and lest not forget about the corporations (i admit that other non american corporations behave in exactly the same manner but yours are the dominant ones by far. "The United States is far from perfect, but the wrongdoings of my Nation have more to do with trying to do the right thing the wrong way, than intentional power grabbing" This is the fundamental reason why we are having this argument, this is the fundamental reason why i have called you indoctrinated, this lie that you so desparately want to beleive just isnt true. "If you're going to say that war profiteering was the motivation, then why even posit oil at all? The $1.7 billion a year would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $18.2 billion a week that is being spent (or earned according to your theory) on maintaining a no-fly zone. Then again, if war profiteering was the motivation, then it wouldn't really matter what country it was in." I hope you're well aware of the military industrial complex given that you are a member of said military, so assuming you are well aware of this, although im sure you ndont know its true motivation and are probably living the fantasy thats ist all for the defense of the american people or some other absolutely ridiculous notion. Anyway that said, you have asked why Libya, well the reason should be immediately apparent Oil is thje answer my friend, oil, simple as. YOU can down play this all you want but you claerly dont understand the kind of power oil brings, whoever controls the flow of oil controls the world.The fact is 2/3rds of the world energy comes from oil and this is expected to remain so for the forseable future. Anyone with superior control over the oil derives massive power from it, it provides an effective cveto against your rivals actions, all you have to say it ill shut off your lights cripple your economy. I dont know hiw this isn't immediately obvious, oil is the greatest material asset mankind has even (and possibly will ever) find, beleive i know i have masters in chemical engineering. "Not to mention you still haven't provided any evidence for EITHER of these motives. Precisely the same amount of evidence other conspiracy theories have. Zero." Characterising these as conspiracy theories only shows how desparate you are, are you telling me that you beleive the intervention in Libya is for humanitarian purposes and not oil & control, because even supporters of this conflict aren't delluded enough to beleive that. Everyone knows what that intervention is about my friend, it isnt even controversial to say its a resource war iniatiated for a number of reasons to do with asserting level of control (or reestablishing it) in the face of a rapidly changing middle east, oil (you cannot escape this fact no matter how much you want to, if Libya had no oil there woiuld be no intervention, and control etc. etc.) You dont need evidence, there exists no tape where Obama and Cameron and Sarchozy sit arounf a table and talk about how its a great big deception, you know this and thats why you are trying to use this as a means to discredit my views but that fact is anyone with a moderate level of intelligence and who isnt completely indoctrinated by his countries nationalistic ideology (that excludes you) knows exactly what this war is about, its not even controversial, these things are being said in the open, the pretence of humanitarian intervention has been met with the ridicule it deserves. "The same reason why I deny Santa Claus, 9/11 "inside job" conspiracies, the bogey man, Bigfoot, alien abductions, government mind control, ancient astronauts, the tooth fairy, and the Illuminati world rulers.......because there is no evidence." A weak attack, you dont seem to realise that your beleiving the governmnet lies is far more tenous than this position, especially in the case of the Libyan intervention, whatever wbout anything else but nobody is trying to dispute the west real motivations in Libya anymore. Look into it. Side: Support the revolutions
Ok, i hadn't realised this, i will try to explain exactly what i mean. When i say puppet government (or dictatorship) i am taking about a regime that is backed (in various ways) by another country I don't see anything negative about this. If every time you said "puppet government" you actually meant "Government backed by another nation" then I would not have been so inclined to dispute your arguments. Hell, the United States was backed by France during the revolutionary war, and is currently backed by China, right now. Does that make the United States a "Puppet Government"? I think this is a case of extreme language for non-extreme instances. I would compare it to the little girl who was bit by a dog and then her father telling the Police that she was "Mauled" by the dog. Your arguments are inflated with hyperbole. another country and is subservient to that countries interests over the interests of its own population. This is a definition I might accept. Now please dont think this is a blank and white definition, these puppet governments are subservient in varying degrees. So then I should expect you to use the term "puppet government" in cases that it mostly doesn't apply....okay. The only Nation that I think you could argue as a Puppet state is Iraq. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ that is primarily sebservient to your interests over those its its population.When i say your i dont just mean the american government, it is in fact often more related to the interests of american multi national corporations, but they effectively control your government so ill just stick with the word "your" as a balanket statement that means both. If past arguments are any indication, you have no problem making blanket statements. 1. Chile 2.Nicaragua I'm not going to disagree with either of these examples. This is the reason I do not like former Presidents Reagan and Nixon, they supported a number of revolutions like the ones in Nicaragua and Chile, they supported brutal regimes in the name of "fighting communism". While the red scare certainly was a factor, I don't think that excuses their decisions. While these actions were certainly irrational, I do think they were done out of fear and not out of greed. Well if you define relations as meaning propping them, ensuring they come to power (most of the time in a completely undemocratic manner to say the least in fact that dooest even due justice to the kinds of crimes you have committed in ensuring your puppet takes control) , then raping that country of all its resourcces while its people suffer greatly then yes that what i call support. This is not the case in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia. In the cases where I have conceded something similar to this in Nicaragua and Chile, it was not about resources at all. In fact it seems most revolutions against tyrants are lead by charismatic men who turn out to themselves be tyrants. Dont get me wrong there are plenty of savage dictatorships you havent supported, or not supported as much as others or whatever, in those cases though it has nothing to do with the fact that they are undemocratic,or despotic, or commit human rights abuses, in those cases its just not within your strategic interest. Of course, you want to find a way to blame the United States for all dictators, without having actually supported all dictators. I understand. It reall doiesnt matter where the fuck you draw the line you can be sure that your great nation will be very very far across on the wrong side of it, ive made my position very clear on this. In order to appear on the other side of a line, then must actually be a line. You've made clear that your position rests on oversimplified hyperbole. It makes it easier to blame the problems of the world when you have someone to point a finger at. This is the fundamental reason why we are having this argument, this is the fundamental reason why i have called you indoctrinated, this lie that you so desparately want to beleive just isnt true. Wow, I'm surprised that you actually agreed that this is what you actually believe. You really do think the united states as an evil empire, which supports dictatorships and the oppression of foreign people for money and power. I think this view of reality is a bit cartoonish. And yes, I do think that my government isn't entirely composed of Darth Vaders. Yes, the United States does genuinely do things for humanitarian reasons, not always, but sometimes. The United States has given more in humanitarian aid than any other country in the world. You can accuse me of being indoctrinated, but your argument to the contrary isn't any better. Everyone knows what that intervention is about my friend "Everyone knows it" is a bullshit argument people use when they don't have any evidence to back up their claims. You dont need evidence, there exists no tape where Obama and Cameron and Sarchozy sit arounf a table and talk about how its a great big deception, you know this All claims need evidence, regardless of how many people think they "know" it to be true. Lots of people "know" things that are completely wrong. This is the type of argument I would get from a religious person. You cannot make an unsupported claim and then when pressed for evidence claim "I just know it". This is a very weak argument. Come back when you have something substantial. Side: Mind our own business
1
point
"I don't see anything negative about this. If every time you said "puppet government" you actually meant "Government backed by another nation" then I would not have been so inclined to dispute your arguments. Hell, the United States was backed by France during the revolutionary war, and is currently backed by China, right now. Does that make the United States a "Puppet Government"?" Firstly, i dont think the USA was repressive regime when it was backed by the French, i alsoi dont think the people that were backed by the French would bow down to the French, and allow their countries resources to be rpaed by the French at the cost of the Ordinary american. Also, i dont you are currently subservient to China, you took one part of the definition and think you can now use it to discredit my argumment, sorry not going to happen. You are constantly trying to compare the inconparable in order to rationalise your countries actions. Im starting to suspect you know deep down that i am correct on many of these issues but feel the need to defend your countries actions regardless, if this is the case that you truly are an ultra nationalist. "I think this is a case of extreme language for non-extreme instances. I would compare it to the little girl who was bit by a dog and then her father telling the Police that she was "Mauled" by the dog. Your arguments are inflated with hyperbole." Non-extreme instances, inflated hyperbole, who the fuck are you trying to kid. Anyone who reads these posts can do their own investigating into to many atrocious actions i have listed and when they do they will see that there is nothing inflated about anything i have written. "This is a definition I might accept." Do you accept the actions that must follow from this definetion i.e. the puppet government must suppress the opposition, any unions or organised peoples movements, they must use subversion to control their population effectively making the state a police state. "So then I should expect you to use the term "puppet government" in cases that it mostly doesn't apply....okay." How about this, you name the country and ill tell you exactly how subservient they were to you, ill tell whether it was because you threatened to cripple them economically or whether you just installed rulers that bent to your every will at the cost of their people, ok. "The only Nation that I think you could argue as a Puppet state is Iraq" You're kidding right? I mean seriously, you must have alot of fun coming up with rationalisation for your countries history and actions, i mean id say it gives you a good oppurtunity to get creative. Lets look at Egypt, the second you told MUbarak to step down, he was gone, does that level of control not warrant being called a puppet government? "If past arguments are any indication, you have no problem making blanket statements" I find that quite rich coming from you e.g. "The United States is far from perfect, but the wrongdoings of my Nation have more to do with trying to do the right thing the wrong way, than intentional power grabbing" "While these actions were certainly irrational, I do think they were done out of fear and not out of greed." Irrational, thats how you define what you did to those countries, irrational, not even regretable, but irrational. Also, i told you name any country in South America and ill tell you how you are primarily responsib;e for fucking it up, did you get a chance to review those articles indicating the strength of the correlation between US foreign aid and human rights violations, i feel that encapsulates what i am saying very well, or better yet watch this inspiring award winning documentary by John Pilger called "the war on democracy" that was banned (they called it censored) from US television, as they can't conceivably be seen to be banning material from a well respected internationally renowned journalist, someone who is lragely recognised as being a defender of truth who doesnt bow down to the corporate and political agenda, please watch: http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/ "n the cases where I have conceded something similar to this in Nicaragua and Chile, it was not about resources at all." I will admit its not always about resources but your notion that it is about security and spreading democracy is pure fantasy. It is about the unilateral use of US power (be state power, corporate power or whatever using either militaristic or economic means) to ensure certain strategic goals are met i.e. priveleged access to key markets (in which you play by your own rules), priveleged access to foreign energy supplies, and securing priveleged access to strategic resources. "In order to appear on the other side of a line, then must actually be a line. You've made clear that your position rests on oversimplified hyperbole." No actually it doesnt, oit relies on US actions for the last 80-100 years. "Of course, you want to find a way to blame the United States for all dictators, without having actually supported all dictators. I understand." No, i really dont im simply acknowledging a fact. To deny that US operates in this fashion is to ignore the history if US foreign policy.Yes there are probably plenty if dictators in Afraice that the US never took a great interest in, why, because they had no reason to. "Wow, I'm surprised that you actually agreed that this is what you actually believe. You really do think the united states as an evil empire, which supports dictatorships and the oppression of foreign people for money and power. I think this view of reality is a bit cartoonish." Evil empire is a very strong phrase that i do not fully support, i dont really beleive in good and evil as being seaprate, i will opnly acknowledge that any other country would behave in exactly the same manner if they becamse as dominant as your own, in fact i worry that if China takes the reigns they may be even worse. I will openly acknowledge that the US has done alot of good in the world, but this is greatly overshadowed by the bad im afraid. Call that a cartoonish view if you please but when you account for the damage caused financial institutions like the world bank, IMF, when you account foe the US multi nationals, and US foreign policy (which are all very interelated) it really does overshadow any good you have done. I think a suitable analogy would be trying to apply a band aid to a severed hand. "It makes it easier to blame the problems of the world when you have someone to point a finger at." I balme the problems of the world on human nature, i dont intentionally target america because i hate them, thats what everyone on this site really misunderstands, i target them because they are by far the most powerful country in the world (still), and the greatest damage is inflicted by those with the greatest power. "And yes, I do think that my government isn't entirely composed of Darth Vaders." I agree with, in fact id go even further than this and say that there are many truly inspiration people in america, the problem is they dont really have that much control, they definitely dont set any policy be it in government, or at corporate level, or whatever, but im sure they have there effect. To quote Bill Hicks; "The world is like a ride at an amusement park. It goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride..." But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered; Reagan... wounded. But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace" "Yes, the United States does genuinely do things for humanitarian reasons, not always, but sometimes" I will acknowledge this, sometimes truly genine actions are implemented even at a high level, the problem is there a drop in an ever ecpanding ocean of inequality, death, disease, starvation, oppression, etc. etc. And again as much as it gives me no pleasure to say it, if there was a largest contributor to the aforementioned im afraind your country would be most likly receive the top prize, especially if it had to do woth foreign interference. ""Everyone knows it" is a bullshit argument people use when they don't have any evidence to back up their claims." Dont worry there'll be plenty of evidence once the rebels take power and Britain, France and the SU scramble for Libyan oil. Although im sure you wont pay attention to it just like you didnt with the Iraqi oil. "You cannot make an unsupported claim and then when pressed for evidence claim "I just know it". This is a very weak argument" I fail to see how its a weak argument, i mean i could say they same about the humanitarian intervention, what evidence is there of that, oh ya, i forgot thats what they said they were going in there for, again this does nothing to compell me in the least, in fact it only supports my view, every invasion in history has been conducted under the pretence of being done for humanitarian purposes, seriously all of them, even the nazis conquest of europe, the utter hypocracy of claiming this is a humanitarian intervention clearly doe not resonate with you, so i ask you why have they done nothing for the people of Bahrain, or Yemen. You just can't even entertain the thought that their motives are self interested can you? "Come back when you have something substantial." I could say the same to you my friend. Side: Support the revolutions
Firstly, i dont think the USA was repressive regime when it was backed by the French, i alsoi dont think the people that were backed by the French would bow down to the French You're missing the point entirely. A puppet state, implies that one nation is controlling another (pulling the strings) in the same manner that a puppet master controls his marionette. Being "backed" by another nation is fundamentally different than being controlled by it. This is what I am attempting to elucidate to you. Non-extreme instances, inflated hyperbole, who the fuck are you trying to kid. Anyone who reads these posts can do their own investigating into to many atrocious actions i have listed and when they do they will see that there is nothing inflated about anything i have written. That is not what I'm referring to. Whenever you describe the relationships between various countries this is mostly hyperbole. According to you Kuwait is an American colony, really? Where is Kuwait ever described as such? Only quacks would make such an assertion. You claimed that Egypt was an American Puppet State, this is sheer hyperbole. Egypt has been a close us ally, of course they are going to listen to what we have to say, but Egypt is a sovereign nation and ultimately Egyptians are going to do what they want to do. Regarding the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, you said that the United States was just trying to get Egypt "out of the way"...again Hyperbole. You said Israel was "colonizing" Palestine. Do you know what the word "colony" means? You have routinely refereed to U.S. interests as it's IMPERIAL AGENDA....again, hyperbole. How can I debate this with you if you insist on using such loaded language? Do you accept the actions that must follow from this definetion i.e. the puppet government must suppress the opposition, any unions or organised peoples movements, they must use subversion to control their population effectively making the state a police state. You are confusing Puppet State with Authoritarian State. How about this, you name the country and ill tell you exactly how subservient they were to you, ill tell whether it was because you threatened to cripple them economically or whether you just installed rulers that bent to your every will at the cost of their people, ok. Any state? Sure. Try China. You're kidding right? I mean seriously, you must have alot of fun coming up with rationalisation for your countries history and actions. I don't have to rationalize anything. I never said the United States was perfect. I never said we didn't make mistakes. However I do think many mistakes were made from a false belief that they were doing what was best (not always the case, but usually). You assert an intentional and insidious attempt at power and money grubbing throughout most of US history (despite numerous leadership changes). Something you have fallen woefully short of demonstrating. Irrational, thats how you define what you did to those countries, irrational, Irrational fear of communism, yes. And I did not do anything to those countries. I was not alive when these events took place. Also, i told you name any country in South America and ill tell you how you are primarily responsib;e for fucking it up French Guiana..........GO! watch this inspiring award winning documentary by John Pilger called "the war on democracy" that was banned (they called it censored) from US television I hate to rain on your parade, but this film was in fact not banned. someone who is lragely recognised as being a defender of truth {laughs} recognized by who, you? John Pilger has only gotten nuttier over the years. Christopher Hitchens has said of Pilger: "I remember thinking that his work from Vietnam was very good at the time. I dare say if I went back and read it again I’d probably still admire quite a lot of it. But there is a word that gets overused and can be misused – namely, anti-American – and it has to be used about him. So that for me sort of spoils it... even when I’m inclined to agree" It is about the unilateral use of US power (be state power, corporate power or whatever using either militaristic or economic means) to ensure certain strategic goals are met i.e. priveleged access to key markets (in which you play by your own rules), priveleged access to foreign energy supplies, and securing priveleged access to strategic resources. The United States has always competed for resources by leveraging it's foreign assets, as does or would any nation. But to say the United States role in Libya is purely for the oil, is an unsubstantiated claim unsupported by evidence. Even when the United States genuinely does something good, you are still trying to find reasons to cast blame for doing so. No, i really dont im simply acknowledging a fact Strongly held opinion =/= fact I balme the problems of the world on human nature And the United States has more human nature than other countries?? i target them because they are by far the most powerful country in the world (still), and the greatest damage is inflicted by those with the greatest power. American power is greatly divided. Our presidents can only serve up to two terms, and our congressmen change seats like fucking musical chairs. So, yes power corrupts, absolutely it does, but our system is designed in such a way to lessen the level of that corruption. Americans often complain about corruption in their government, I even started a debate on why I think that there is corruption in our system, but if you were to compare American corruption to most other countries' corruption you would see that we (Americans) are very fortunate. American corruption does not even begin to compare to Chinese corruption, Bolivian Corruption, Mexican Corruption, Libyan Corruption, Vatican Corruption, etc... So perhaps you are right to an extent, The United States has a greater potential to do wrong in the world because of the influence that we have, but I think you have exaggerated the wrongs, attributed them solely to greed, and ignored the rights. I fail to see how its a weak argument Because "I just know it" isn't an argument, it's a statement of faith. every invasion in history has been conducted under the pretence of being done for humanitarian purposes This is false. The Crusades Napoleonic Wars WWI Mongolian Invasion Hun Invasion Norman Invasion 100 years war Saxon Invasion Vandal Invasion Gothic Invasion In fact, just about every war or invasion started because of hatred of a rival nation (which is most of them) would contradict your claim. That's not to say that 'said nations didn't think they were justified in invading a rival state. So I ask you why have they done nothing for the people of Bahrain, or Yemen. This is one of the inherent problems with aiding revolutions, obviously we can't help everybody we have neither the resources nor the manpower. There are also additional complications that need to be taken into consideration. For example in Yemen, we have many Americans living in Yemen, if we publicly support an overthrow of the Government there, this could endanger those Americans. Side: Mind our own business
1
point
I would have a slightly different view on the matter, i think they really dont care who the rebels are as long as they play by wastern rules, just like they dont care what the Saudi regime is like or any of other autocratic rulers and despots they have supported, the list is endless. Side: Mind our own business
Our leaders lie about many things, not least that we waged war on Iraq in "self-defense." But they don't lie when they boast about America being a democracy. This is true: We were once a Federal Republic – now we are a centralized democracy. But while the founding idea of a republic was beautiful, the reality of a democracy is repugnant. To the founding fathers, a republic meant the division, as opposed to the concentration, of government power, explains Pulitzer-Prize winning author Felix Morley in "Freedom and Federalism." http://www.mosesbasketsoutlet.co.uk/ Side: Support the revolutions
1
point
|
