Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[Burnsys]

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

The UN was created by the us at the same time that the imf.. and the security council avoid it to be a full democratic institution..

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

NO i don't agree with the article, i know what a terrorist government is... becouse we had one... what i don't agree is that the us has any right to take the place of the world police becouse his history is full of cases of support of other terrorist goverments like argentina's for example moreover invading countrys using WMD and even creating nations out of nowhere for their own interest...

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

The so called world comunity is a group of corrupt leaders working for multinational corporations..

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

1st. we are not just a few... second everyone that think the us should not police the world is not an extremist... maybe you tend to discriminate all that are againt the government in your country, but believe me. over here we are the mayority, becouse we live day by day us foreing policy.. and this is why there are no people who runs legitimate government to think this way:

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

Couse US never let them grow...

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

I am not changing topics, i am going where you take me...

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

what nonsence it's all documented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

 

[Burnsys]

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

I think are PRIVATE banks.. but i am not completely sure... i really would like to know

 

[misskitty]

It might be a combination of both the countries and the private banks.

 

[klusener]

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

hmmm... In 1946, the US opened a military school in Panama (School of Americas) which produced the dictators that controlled Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and also incidentally Argentina.. It produced dictators like Noreiga and most of Pinochet's people were from that people and go to Burnsys's other thread for the atrocities that these people committed..

Edited: see 2nd post..

 

[misskitty]

I'm sure that that wasn't the orginal intent of the school. I can't think of any country that would set up a school with that as their mission statement.

 

[klusener]

It's mission was to see its graduates stop movements, communist or anything that
threatened American interests in general, to avoid military intervention by the United States. Of course, they are not going to say that publicly, but you don't look at words, because people change their words, but you look at their actions. These actions have manifested in the murdering of innocent Latin Americans..

Look at most of the dictatorships that took place in Latin America and who did them, most of them have been graduates from the school..

 

[loseyourname]

yesterday Shell decide to rise oil prices... and today repsol and exoon rised them to... nothing we can do... there are no more oil companys to buy oil from... that is free market.. free market for shell repsol and exoon. we have no choice...

It isn't Shell and Exxon raising prices due to market forces. It the anticapitalistic cartel OPEC that artificially reduces supply to maintain high prices, much as the diamond cartels in Africa do. It is subversion of the market that causes these things.

 

[klusener]

My basic point is that wherever you see Uncle Sam use his military force or economic force, it is to preserve his own interests, it's hyprocisy when people harp on how these things are done for moral reasons or for the people of that land...

 

[loseyourname]

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

To be fair, the Spanish-American war was based more on false pretense than it was on the Spanish mistreating Cubans. At a time when most of the important western European nations had large empires, the US had no colonial holdings. Taking Spain's possessions in the Caribbean and South Pacific was a good start and the falsified USS Maine incident provided the excuse (not human rights abuses).

 

[klusener]

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

To add to loseyourname's post, at that time Cuba was an easy base for other countries, Europe and Japan, to attack the United States from, look at how close Florida is, so that was another key reason to gain control of Cuba. Again, it shows the point I made in the post above loseyourname's...

 

[loseyourname]

My basic point is that wherever you see Uncle Sam use his military force or economic force, it is to preserve his own interests, it's hyprocisy when people harp on how these things are done for moral reasons or for the people of that land...

It's easy to see why this was the case. If every nation with military capacity openly performed military actions based solely on self-interest, we'd open the door to a Hobbesian nightmare. It might be in North Korea's interest to destroy South Korea, or Israel's self-interest to simply eradicate the Palestinian people completely. Public justification based on moral pretenses is at least one step up. In many cases, military actions like those taken in Bosnia and Afghanistan are in the best interest of the larger world community and do promote human rights. Even the current US action in the middle east may very well be helping to install democratic regimes that will be more peaceful than their predecessors. Whether or not this was really the reason the perpetrators of the war went in (or their sole purpose was to remove Hussein), it remains a desirable outcome and I do see it as a positive thing that stating it as a pretense for war causes the public to hold its leaders to a standard that requires they actually fulfill that moral pretense.

 

[Burnsys]

I'm sure that that wasn't the orginal intent of the school. I can't think of any country that would set up a school with that as their mission statement.

Just do a google search for: School of the Americas.

http://www.soaw.org/
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/soa.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/index-a.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
http://mediafilter.org/guest/Pages/September.21.1996.23.26.32

As a college, student it concerns me to consider the future for the youth of this country; a country that advocates the training policies that have existed in the SOA for years. It appalls me to think that US tax dollars are being spent on training that has led to the deaths of many innocent people in Latin American countries. I hope that the demonstration on the 16 of November contributes toward the closing of the school's doors forever. I agree w/ Rev. Bourgeois in the notion that, "The SOA is being used to control the poor in Latin America while protecting the wealth of the elite." The human rights violations must come to an end.

I realize that I am neither an expert in torture nor "the art of subversive warfare" but I do know that to trust blindly in our government is sheer stupidity especially in a case such as this. I have spent time in several of the latin american countries that have "benefitted" from our superior knowledge and training in suppressing human rights by whatever means nessasary. The truly sad part was not knowing why, as a citizen of the US, I was alternately hated and catered to. I now know the truth and will have to bear the guilt of unconsciously supporting it for all these years. It must be stopped.

Notorious Graduates
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=205&cat=63

 

[klusener]

So you agree that the reasons that are used as a pretense for the usage of the force are self-serving?

 

[loseyourname]

To answer the college student whom you just quoted, the SOA has been shut down. It might take a while, but I get the impression that the US (and most other nations, for that matter) do learn from their mistakes.

 

[Burnsys]

It isn't Shell and Exxon raising prices due to market forces. It the anticapitalistic cartel OPEC that artificially reduces supply to maintain high prices, much as the diamond cartels in Africa do. It is subversion of the market that causes these things.

We export half the oil we consume.. so i don't see why we have to pay for oil at international prices if we don't import it from any country. it's under our soil...

 

[loseyourname]

So you agree that the reasons that are used as a pretense for the usage of the force are false?

I can't give a blanket answer for that. I'm sure there are world leaders that could care less about the moral implications of their actions and will simply do anything to increase the power and security of their own nation or even just their own ruling party. On the other hand, there are likely world leaders that do perform military actions based largely on moral concerns (though I highly doubt they will ever perform an action that is not in the own interest out of moral concern). All I'm saying is that, regardless of their internal motivations, I find it to be a good thing that, publicly, we try to hold our leaders to some moral standard.

 

[loseyourname]

We export half the oil we consume.. so i don't see why we have to pay for oil at international prices if we don't import it from any country. it's under our soil...

The companies pumping the oil unfortunately have to offset the costs created by OPEC by spreading them relatively evenly across their customer base. If they gave lower prices to Argentina and other nations that had their own oil (US, Canada, etc.), they'd have to really gouge nations with no oil, in which case their sales would likely go down at some point (there does eventually become a point at which alternative energy, expensive as it is, would be less expensive than oil) and they would then have to raise their prices elsewhere to offset the costs. Either way, the prices end up high. That's just what happens when you subvert the market the way OPEC and other cartels do. No one complains about the diamond cartels because they are a luxury good, but oil is essential to many everyday activities.

Edit: You will find extremely high costs of gasoline in many European nations, but this has nothing to do with the prices charged by oil companies. It is simply that they tax the hell out of it.

 

[Burnsys]

To answer the college student whom you just quoted, the SOA has been shut down. It might take a while, but I get the impression that the US (and most other nations, for that matter) do learn from their mistakes.

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake? what grade of knowledge do you think the army had about what was going on there? you think they where blind?

In an attempt to deflect public criticism and disassociate the school from its dubious reputation, the SOA was renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) in 2001. The name change was a result of a Department of Defense proposal included in the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 2001, at a time when SOA opponents were poised to win a congressional vote on legislation that would have dismantled the school. The name-change measure passed when the House of Representatives defeated a bi-partisan amendment to close the SOA and conduct a congressional investigation by a narrow ten vote margin.

In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation.

 

[loseyourname]

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake? what grade of knowledge do you think the army had about what was going on there? you think they where blind?

Intentional misdoings are still mistakes. You're confusing "mistake" with "accident." I'm not implying that no one had any idea what was going on.

 

[Burnsys]

The companies pumping the oil unfortunately have to offset the costs created by OPEC by spreading them relatively evenly across their customer base. If they gave lower prices to Argentina and other nations that had their own oil (US, Canada, etc.), they'd have to really gouge nations with no oil, in which case their sales would likely go down at some point (there does eventually become a point at which alternative energy, expensive as it is, would be less expensive than oil) and they would then have to raise their prices elsewhere to offset the costs. Either way, the prices end up high. That's just what happens when you subvert the market the way OPEC and other cartels do. No one complains about the diamond cartels because they are a luxury good, but oil is essential to many everyday activities.

Edit: You will find extremely high costs of gasoline in many European nations, but this has nothing to do with the prices charged by oil companies. It is simply that they tax the hell out of it.

America imports half of it's oil consumption... but what you mean then is that 30 millons people who live in argentina have to pay for their own country oil international price to 3 foreing companies becouse if not they sales would go down in other countrys which has no oil?

 

[Burnsys]

Intentional misdoings are still mistakes. You're confusing "mistake" with "accident." I'm not implying that no one had any idea what was going on.

sory.. anyway they are not trying to fix anything.

In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation

 

[russ_watters]

So you agree that the reasons that are used as a pretense for the usage of the force are self-serving?

Of course! Countries act primarily based on their own self(ish) interests. That is neither unusual, nor is it wrong.

We export half the oil we consume.. so i don't see why we have to pay for oil at international prices if we don't import it from any country. it's under our soil...

That's basic economics: if the oil companies, even in Argentina, didn't charge the same as everyone else charged, people would just buy all the oil in Argentina at those low prices and resell it at higher prices globally. That's the way supply and demand works on a global market.

Why should a company - Argentinan or otherwise - charge one price to one person and another price to another person?

edit: regardless, this is part of your 'everything is America's fault' attitude. OPEC sets the prices, not us.

It wasn't a mistake loseyourname. it was premeditated.. it was on purpouse. It was usesfull for them. what mistake?

They did something they shouldn't have done, realized it, and stopped doing it. That's pretty much the definition of "mistake".

 

[loseyourname]

America imports half of it's oil consumption... but what you mean then is that 30 millons people who live in argentina have to pay for their own country oil international price to 3 foreing companies becouse if not they sales would go down in other countrys which has no oil?

The companies don't differentiate by country. If their sales go down anywhere, it just means that their overall sales have gone down, in which they case they have two choices: raise prices or go out of business. Granted, they can also downsize a good deal, but I would imagine they have already done so since the boom years they had. By spreading the costs evenly across their customer base, they avoid ever having the sales drop in the first place and remain able to better serve the entire base.

 

[klusener]

Of course! Countries act primarily based on their own self(ish) interests. That is neither unusual, nor is it wrong.

That means you agree that the Iraq war was for your interests and not for the sake of the Iraqi people.

 

[Burnsys]

Of course! Countries act primarily based on their own self(ish) interests. That is neither unusual, nor is it wrong. That's basic economics: if the oil companies, even in Argentina, didn't charge the same as everyone else charged, people would just buy all the oil in Argentina at those low prices and resell it at higher prices globally. That's the way supply and demand works on a global market.

Why should a company - Argentinan or otherwise - charge one price to one person and another price to another person? They did something they shouldn't have done, realized it, and stopped doing it. That's pretty much the definition of "mistake".

They didn't stop doing it, they just changed it name...

"In a media interview, Georgia Senator and SOA supporter the late Paul Coverdell characterized the DOD proposal as a "cosmetic" change that would ensure that the SOA could continue its mission and operation"

you can set one price for exporting and another price for the inner market... after all the oil their are exporting and selling came from our soil... it should be used to help the country get out of the crisis.. not for 3 foreign corporations profits...

 

[loseyourname]

you can set one price for exporting and another price for the inner market... after all the oil their are exporting and selling came from our soil... it should be used to help the country get out of the crisis.. not for 3 foreign corporations profits...

You're misunderstanding the way capitalism works - the way it has to work. If they lowered the price for every country that imported no oil, they'd have to raise prices elsewhere. In doing so, they'd lose business and eventually be forced to raise the prices in countries with their own oil as well. If they did this, which is what you want them to do, you'd actually end up paying more. There is no way around this and there is no malicious behavior here on the part of any oil company. The only body that behaves maliciously in causing high prices is OPEC.

I could cry the same cry you do. Why do Californians have to pay higher prices than the rest of the US when we have oil and they don't? Heck, I had oil derricks in my backyard back in Long Beach. The answer for me is a little more convoluted. We have stricter emissions laws here that require expensive additives be mixed with our gasoline, which makes for expensive gasoline.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm not a Fox watcher, but I don't see any problem other than overzealousness.

I don't have the article at hand, but it was a behind the scenes description of O'Reilly among others, which indicated a problem much more than "overzealousness." I'll just point to the "Outfoxed" documentary, and the out-pour of complaints to the FCC to make FOX remove their tag-line.

If a country is run by terrorists and kills innocent civilians as a matter of policy, why shouldn't we attack?

Let's not forget the same was said of the PLO, but though it became more moderate over time, the U.S. refused to recognize it as a legitimate government or Lebanon as a sovereign state. Who knows what direction Hezbollah would take. Not to mention Iraq, which even if it does not become an Islamic republic, isn't it really whether or not they become an U.S. ally? But the real issue is that terrorism is a world-wide guerilla phenomenon, and cannot be addressed in the traditional way of war against states.

Democracy is not relevant here: Democracy or otherwise, terrorism is terrorism. In an effort to disparage democracy, people claim Hitler was popularly elected. It isn't true, but if it was, so what? Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

It is relevant because Bush has been claiming that U.S. foreign policy is to end terror by spreading democracy. The root of terrorism is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the U.S. taking sides, continued U.S. intervention, etc.

 

[SOS2008]

...Yeah, Gibson gets a little heavy-handed at times, and he's extremely sarcastic...

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

...Gibson has difficulties with arguments that we shouldn't be interfering with other peoples' choices of forms of government, and, that is the point of his piece, that they will NOT be able to sing that song for once.

I accept that.

 

[SOS2008]

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

What news agencies are to the left? CNN? MSNBC? I see balanced reporting in these U.S. news agencies, even PBS most of the time, but never with FOX News. The old stereotypes of the press being liberal never fades...

 

[SOS2008]

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

I don't know about worldwide debt, but China owns most of the U.S. debt...

 

[Shadow]

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

First off please do not misquote. I do not in any way support bombing a democracy back to the stone age, as fox put it. But naming this topic as though fox news said straight out "Lets bomb a democracy back to the stone age" is an outrage. In your own post it is worded quite differently (as I showed above) and it also says BECAUSE it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us. Your title makes it sound much more malicious and war mongering than it is, it certainly made my heart stop.

 

[Bystander]

Re: my remarks on Gibson -

I would describe some of these folks as in-your-face hostile, and why I believe this suppresses dissent, certainly more frightening than tree-hugging whale watcher types.

Gibson's remarks suppress dissent? How? I haven't watched Dan Rather for 35 years, an "in your face" kinda guy if ever there were. You don't like Gibson, switch to the teletubbies or whatever suits your fancy Rather was losing money and ratings for CBS, and he got canned. Gibson starts losing money for Fox, he'll get canned. Neither is elected to any office in the various levels of govt. in this country, neither makes policy, and neither can be gagged for expressing opinions. Rather got his butt into trouble for presenting opinions as fact, and Gibson will get the same treatment if he should happen to follow suit. You don't like the commentary? Again, exercise your rights to change channels.

Frightening? Tree huggers? Spiking trees? Killing loggers? Yeah. [begin sarcasm]Very proud to step forward and pick up the liabilities for such actions, too.[/end sarcasm] For Russ: this is where I got off the "moral high ground" and started looking for more rational bases for "moral" human behavior standards.

 

[SOS2008]

Re: my remarks on Gibson - Gibson's remarks suppress dissent? How? I haven't watched Dan Rather for 35 years, an "in your face" kinda guy if ever there were. You don't like Gibson, switch to the teletubbies or whatever suits your fancy.

News Hounds: “Fox News' John Gibson has gone even farther than other journalists in falling, hook, line, and sinker, for the Bush claim that the Iraq elections are related to some Lebanese demonstrating for the removal of Syrian troops from their country. Gibson went over the line on "The Big Story" Wednesday (March 9), however, when he said the U.S. could bomb Lebanon "with a clean conscience" if it votes democratically to retain Syrian troops. …And to think just a few minutes earlier on the same show, Gibson aired a tape of Bush saying, "Free societies don't attack their neighbors." No, "attack" is too wimpy. They bomb them back to the Stone Age, right Herr Gibson?”

But my main point with regard to dissent is that FOX News is watched by a large number of Americans (as indicated by ratings) who then think it’s okay to behave the same way. Change the channel? I prefer the FOXBlocker “…an innovative new product that filters out the FOX News network. … With every order placed, FOXBlocker.com will send an e-mail in your name to the TOP 10 advertisers at FOX News letting them know that yet another subscriber has opted out of FOX News. Protect yourself and your family, or send one to a misguided right wing friend.” Teletubbies? Who watches NASCAR, WWE Wrestling, etc.? Sounds more like a right-wing program. Seriously, I think there’s agreement that all agencies should be required to report in a fair and balanced way if they want to have the word “news” in their name (whether with a left or right slant).

 

[Bystander]

News Hounds:(snip)
But my main point with regard to dissent is that FOX News is watched by a large number of Americans (as indicated by ratings) who then think it’s okay to behave the same way.

non sequitur "Monkey see, monkey do?" Woodstockers, hippies, liberals, bomb throwing bolsheviks, and other such mental giants take their cues from the tube, perhaps, but this is a bit of a stretch to portray the entire country marching lockstep behind the "Svengali Gibson in pursuit of the fourth reich."

(snip)Seriously, I think there’s agreement

Source this "agreement."

that all agencies should be required to report in a fair and balanced way

---- as judged by whom? "Just the facts, ma'am," was Friday's line on Dragnet, but you cannot be serious --- journalists have no idea what facts are, much less how to report them, never have, and never will. Their only role is to inform the public that something has happened and may be of interest to the public in terms of attention, correction, remediation, whatever --- other than this, a journalist is "the boy who cries wolf" for a living.

if they want to have the word “news” in their name (whether with a left or right slant).

 

[SOS2008]

This may belong under earlier threads on dissent from popular opinion, but aside from FOX News, and earlier threads about paid pundits, here’s more on the topic of suppression, most notably the umbrella company Sinclair Broadcasting Group (with around 62 stations):

http://www.never-be-silent.com/

“The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of using its public license to promote Republican causes. Earlier this year [2003], Sinclair tried to censor an installment of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq.”

There is an entire list of litany regarding Sinclair, which continues…

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/03/gop_web_sites_s.php

“The owners of influential Republican Web sites, most notably freerepublic.com, lucianne.com, and townhall.com, have largely made discussions of immigration reform taboo, by banning any material from prominent Web sites and writers who call for the enforcement of America’s immigration laws.

…Although a large plurality of FReepers support immigration enforcement, Jim Robinson has little tolerance for that position. His computer software automatically blocks any posts linking to the premier anti-illegal immigration Web site, VDARE.com, and his moderators delete any posts of articles by prominent restrictionist writer Steve Sailer. When I once sought to post one of Sailer’s articles, Robinson threatened to ban me from the site."

And while there may have been 48% who did not vote for Bush, there are how many "red" states compared to "blue" states? Sorry, but I can't boo-hoo about mistreatment of conservatives in this country.