Yes Or No. The US Survival Depends On Exporting Democracy

[yychobbyist]

“The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”


blah blah blah. Christ, what hypocritical drivel. Live up to what you say or shut the frig up American demogogues!

 

[onthebottom]

“The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.” blah blah blah. Christ, what hypocritical drivel. Live up to what you say or shut the frig up American demogogues!

Ah, the "fair and balanced" comment! LOL

OTB

 

[yychobbyist]

In a Fox News sort of way, yes it is.

 

[assoholic]

..The Survival of the US depends on the full support of its people in its actions. After Nam that was severly damaged, hard to say the damage in the end Iraq will do.

 

[MrLuvr]

I think you are almost right, except that you need to change one letter in your heading. Here, let me fix it for you:

Yes Or No. The US Survival Depends On Extorting Democracy

Extorting democracy on their own terms. But they will fail, miserably, as they are doing so now in Iraq.

 

[K Douglas]

Is Michael Moore your idol??

Exporting democracy? That assumes that the US has democracy to begin with, something that some academics outside of the US question. Although the US currently is exibiting all the "classic" signs of fascism, it is closer to the mark to suggest that the US is really an oligarchy. The difference between the current US oligarchy and ones in the past, is that in the US, the elite tends to slowly change in membership over time. Nobility is not linked to land or heredity.

The US needs to "export" democracy, not for the sake of exporting "virtures" that will allow the rest of the world to play nice, but rather, to give the masses a reason to allow the oligarchy to continue to wage war, and to expend the "throwaway" elements of US society.

Lets face it, the US is less interested in having a democratic neighbour than in having a willing economic colony. Lets remember some "democratic" US allies: The Shaw of Iran, Marcos, Noriega, Saudi Arabia, Pinnocet...

Being democratic is not what the US elite wants. The US elite wants access to cheap labour, cheap resources, wealthy markets.

This bafflegab about exporting democracy is nothing more than a con job.

Winston,

Please tell me how Iran,Phillipines,Panama,Saudi Arabia and Chile are economic colonies of the U.S? The real con job is the socialists rhetoric, telling half truths or misinforming altogether.

 

[islandboy]

Winston: If we only look at the bad or arguable stuff, I guess you would conclude, based upon the experience of Quebec and the Canadian First People's, that English Canada is an oppressive undemocratic state and people intent at all costs upon oppression of others.

Yes, that's it. Canadian positions on world affairs will never be anything other than unprincipled, unfair, and disgustingly self interested. Bad logic; the premises you use starts with some fact, is based in suspicion, and never allows for change.

 

[Drunken Master]

Winston: If we only look at the bad or arguable stuff, I guess you would conclude, based upon the experience of Quebec and the Canadian First People's, that English Canada is an oppressive undemocratic state and people intent at all costs upon oppression of others.

Yes, that's it. Canadian positions on world affairs will never be anything other than unprincipled, unfair, and disgustingly self interested. Bad logic; the premises you use starts with some fact, is based in suspicion, and never allows for change.

Hang on. Both of these instances are internal to Canada. Beyond the initial British takeover, I'm hard pressed to recall any instance when Canada installed/supported a repressive gov't in another country.

Winston - Pineapple face?

 

[islandboy]

Well, if we have to look outside what you do to your own people - and I submit that we do not - what about the display of sympathies when Quebec voted to stay out of WWII and permit the Nazi's to keep Europe. And - this is a real question - didn't you jump in and recognize the Kamer Rouge in Cambodia? Too - and again this is a question - didn't you side a bit too long with Rodesia and its supression of blacks? Are you telling me that Canada has never made a short term or long term geopolitcal error when viewed sceptically, or in retrospect, or out of context? I think not.

And you know, while your farmers cry about unfair US subsidies, our farmers look at barriers into importing Apples in Quebec, tax breaks on profits from cattle sales, and a host of ways you have supported your farmers to achieve the same end which include a death tax set up which helps your farmers - more than ours - when in comes to intergenerational transfers of wealth. As it is the third world farmers who would most benefit from free trade in agriculture - you are not helping either.

 

[Drunken Master]

I've been mulling this over.

Part of the problem with Bush is that in many ways he's done exactly what the Left has been wanting the States to do for years - support democracy instead of repressive states. He has "exported democracy" at an enormous financial and political cost.

There are two problems here:

1) As Winston so eloquently points out (isn't it interesting, Winston, how some people who have little grasp of any kind of truth feel themselves capable of pointing out half-truths to others?) the US continues an almost ludicrous level of inconsistency when it come to democracy. I continues to support thoroughly undemocratic states in the name "stability" and "American interests" and still seeks to destablise democratic states it doesn't improve of (Venezuela). It recently placed a small group which is fighting for independence for their ethnic homeland within China on their list of "dangerous terrorists". And Kazakhstan, and Equitorial Quinea, etc...

2) The second problem is, the essential rationale for sponsoring repressive regimes during the Cold War - they acted as a bulwark against dangerous instability - remains as true today as it did then. There was an excellent article in Foregin Affairs a little while ago that made this same point - in the Middle East, for example, there is every reason to expect that democratic elections would simply lead to autocratic, anti-American states. As for the idea that democratic states will influence their neighbours - by osmosis, presumably - this too does not hold much water. In Africa, for example, more often than not the influence has run in the opposite direction - autocratic states use their large militaries and influence to render democratic states corrupt. Iraq is now an island in a sea of totalitarians - the big one to the south being a US ally - and each state is doing its level best to make its influence felt in the election. The osmosis is flowing in the other direction...

 

[Drunken Master]

Well, if we have to look outside what you do to your own people - and I submit that we do not - what about the display of sympathies when Quebec voted to stay out of WWII and permit the Nazi's to keep Europe. And - this is a real question - didn't you jump in and recognize the Kamer Rouge in Cambodia? Too - and again this is a question - didn't you side a bit too long with Rodesia and its supression of blacks? Are you telling me that Canada has never made a short term or long term geopolitcal error when viewed sceptically, or in retrospect, or out of context? I think not.

And you know, while your farmers cry about unfair US subsidies, our farmers look at barriers into importing Apples in Quebec, tax breaks on profits from cattle sales, and a host of ways you have supported your farmers to achieve the same end which include a death tax set up which helps your farmers - more than ours - when in comes to intergenerational transfers of wealth. As it is the third world farmers who would most benefit from free trade in agriculture - you are not helping either.

Oh, we've made some huge boners when it comes to foregin policy, make no mistake. But let's be realistic, shall we?

Quebec felt (stupidly, I'll cheerfully admit) that WWII was a British conflict it wanted nothing to do with. The same attitude prevailed in Ireland at the time.

Cambodia and Rhodesia - well, in Africa in general, both your country and mine have dismal records, granted. But Cambodia is indicative of the real difference I was talking about - when the US bombed Cambodia in the 70's, the government collapsed and the Khmer Rouge took over. The US then largely stood by and watch that particularly brutal catastophe happen. I'm sorry, but whatever Canada did is not comparable on a moral scale. I'm not US-bashing, this is just common sense.

As for farming - you're absolutely right. Both of us need to be doing more for the third world. Canada donates a mere 13 cents per 100 dollars of GDP, US a mere 6 cents per 100 dollars of GDP. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_gdp

 

[islandboy]

Drunken Master: Well said. Real politic and ethics can diverge or converge; its an imperfect world and you only hope, when all is said and done, that the all the facts and nuiances have been properly recognized and considered as a government chart what is must do or believes it should do. There are a lot of folks who contribute that fail to understand this - its my way or no way and I will paint the worst picuture possible of those who disagree with me in order to either get my point accross or "win" on the issue - as if there is ever such a thing as winning when it comes to such complex matters.

(While I think that theocratic demoncracy is an oxymoron and will present significant troubles down the road, if it gives people - both within and without the country - more hope, that is a lot. Is it enough, and can it change and liberalize with time, will be the questions. The real issues for discusions at this point are in the implementation. Most of the other stuff is water over the dam.)

 

[islandboy]

PS Those figures do not figure in military expenditures some of which have to be counted to be fair. Our ships, helcoptors, planes and troops, were frist in with disaster aid this past month, for example, and the costs are hudge.