What are your opinions? - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
March 6th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
"It looks like Communism export of the Cold War in reverse."

Yeah, _complete_ reverse. The right to self determination for all instead of being under the direct control of Moscow or Peking.
March 6th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Charge_7


It is tendency for the American politicans to step on others backs with its "Democratic Labled" Combat boots, if you put it that way.
March 6th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Self determination and freedom is "stepping on others backs"? Only those of despots and slavemasters.
--
Boots
March 6th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Hehehehe...


Slavemaster, good one.
March 6th, 2005  
lumberjack
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Self determination and freedom is "stepping on others backs"? Only those of despots and slavemasters.
is citizens in western world (including canada ) truly free?

at least me and my buddies can do nothing when our provincial government decides to increase tax and cut social programs...

ya..we can refuse to vote for them next time..but we have already suffered for 3 years and we can do nothing...


am i really free?
March 6th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
Self determination and freedom is "stepping on others backs"? Only those of despots and slavemasters.
SELF determination
March 7th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
I tried a Google search on such a bill in Congress and found nothing.
March 7th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
That's right, Chewie, self determination. If after being freed from despots they decide to establish something of their own for their government, they can do so as is happening now in Iraq. Democracy cannot be thrust upon people, neither can it be legislated into being. The policy is to promote democracy and work more strongly to enable it's existence. I think some of you are taking this just a bit too literally and supposing that we will just march into any country we see fit and establish puppet governments. "Hommie don't play that" to coin a phrase.
March 7th, 2005  
SigPig
 
Look at Iraq right now. I disagreed with the invasion; not because I liked Saddam Hussein, but I didn’t buy Mr Bush’s rationale for invasion. Had he come out up front and said, “Look, that boy just done needed a whuppin’”, I could have gotten behind that. And I consider myself a liberal.

That being said, you got to hand it to Dubya: he promised elections, he gave them elections. He broke the Sunni-minority Ba‘athist hegemony, and allowed for majority rule. He didn’t fix the election (like say in Belarus or Ukraine) to get his hand-picked buddy elected; and when he didn’t get elected, the only thing I heard from the White House was some surprise and disappointment, but no sabre-rattling, threats, or nullification of the results. Dubya seems to be respecting the principles of democracy he's purporting to instal. He doesn’t seem to be following the Reagan-era foreign policy that said democracy equals non-communist. I believe the US issued a statement re the takeover of Nepal by its king – even though he’s fighting Maoists. It will be interesting to see if the Bush Administration will put pressure as well on the USA’s traditional allies who may be somewhat, ah, restrictive.

Some of the mistrust directed toward American foreign policy seems to stem partly from its history of supporting almost any regime – so long as it wasn’t communist. Look at Batista, Somoza, Pinochet, the Contras, Marcos, the Shah… It also doesn’t help mutual understanding when the median of political thought in America seems to come down somewhat farther to the right than that of her traditional allies in Canada and Europe.

The Americans are right: when they don’t intervene in a hot spot, they’re called navel-gazing isolationists. When they do intervene, everyone else gets sore that they weren’t consulted.

I hope that the primary means that the US “exports democracy” is through economic and diplomatic pressure. I know Syria seems to be on the verge of wetting its dictatorial pants, and Uncle Sam hasn’t so much as lobbed one across its bow yet.

I just hope that someone decides something needs to be done in Darfur before it becomes another Rwanda…if it hasn’t already.

BTW: Does this ADVANCE (boy, you Americans love your acronyms, dontcha?) bill state which particular nations have been deemed “non-democratic”? I hope they don’t decide that John Paul II is a “dictator-for-life” and needs to be taken out.

2nd BTW: Why the heck hasn’t the US done the shock-and-awe topple-the-tin-pot schtick in Cuba, once and for all?

J.
March 7th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigPig
Look at Iraq right now. I disagreed with the invasion; not because I liked Saddam Hussein, but I didn’t buy Mr Bush’s rationale for invasion. Had he come out up front and said, “Look, that boy just done needed a whuppin’”, I could have gotten behind that. And I consider myself a liberal.

That being said, you got to hand it to Dubya: he promised elections, he gave them elections. He broke the Sunni-minority Ba‘athist hegemony, and allowed for majority rule. He didn’t fix the election (like say in Belarus or Ukraine) to get his hand-picked buddy elected; and when he didn’t get elected, the only thing I heard from the White House was some surprise and disappointment, but no sabre-rattling, threats, or nullification of the results. Dubya seems to be respecting the principles of democracy he's purporting to instal. He doesn’t seem to be following the Reagan-era foreign policy that said democracy equals non-communist. I believe the US issued a statement re the takeover of Nepal by its king – even though he’s fighting Maoists. It will be interesting to see if the Bush Administration will put pressure as well on the USA’s traditional allies who may be somewhat, ah, restrictive.

Some of the mistrust directed toward American foreign policy seems to stem partly from its history of supporting almost any regime – so long as it wasn’t communist. Look at Batista, Somoza, Pinochet, the Contras, Marcos, the Shah… It also doesn’t help mutual understanding when the median of political thought in America seems to come down somewhat farther to the right than that of her traditional allies in Canada and Europe.

The Americans are right: when they don’t intervene in a hot spot, they’re called navel-gazing isolationists. When they do intervene, everyone else gets sore that they weren’t consulted.

I hope that the primary means that the US “exports democracy” is through economic and diplomatic pressure. I know Syria seems to be on the verge of wetting its dictatorial pants, and Uncle Sam hasn’t so much as lobbed one across its bow yet.

I just hope that someone decides something needs to be done in Darfur before it becomes another Rwanda…if it hasn’t already.

BTW: Does this ADVANCE (boy, you Americans love your acronyms, dontcha?) bill state which particular nations have been deemed “non-democratic”? I hope they don’t decide that John Paul II is a “dictator-for-life” and needs to be taken out.

2nd BTW: Why the heck hasn’t the US done the shock-and-awe topple-the-tin-pot schtick in Cuba, once and for all?

J.
good points sig....couldn't agree more