or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "If you're pro-democracy then you're pro-US foreign policy"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"If you're pro-democracy then you're pro-US foreign policy"  

post #1 of 128
Thread Starter 
Yeah Right

I think the neo conservatives need to face the reality that they actually create division in the world (against) the United States.

Quote:
"And in Cairo Wednesday the chants included "Enough to Mubarak, Enough to Bush, Enough to Blair,'' along with "We will not be ruled by the CIA" and "Down with the White House."

CSM Link

I find it interesting that the Mr. and Mrs. Arab in the middle east are essentially against foreign control / manipulation of their patch of grass on the planet much like early Americans were in the New England colonies with their would be european masters.

But we Americans just stay over there so we can "keep all that terrorism at bay"

I think I can actually relate to the average Arab who wants England ooops I mean America out of their business.

Ohhh but if America left the middle east alone Israel would be destroyed by "those Arab terrorists" Right??

That's funny.... America is so badly needed by Israel yet America is free to invade Iraq and that is no big deal

Interesting..

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #2 of 128
America is Israels justification for what they do. It's their moral leader, their justifier, their lawyer. America = Morality = Support for Israel = Israel = Actions = Good.

As long as America stands behing Israel, Israel will have justification for what it does. What it does is not, and will not be just, but by supporting what Israel does, America gives a stamp of "morality" to this whole business. If you have a problem with what Israel does, you have a problem with the US.

And you don't want to have a problem with the US, unless of course, you're ready to defend yourself from crusaders of 9/11-ism.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
post #3 of 128
Offer not valid in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

And I wouldn't really suggest trying the US=pro-democracy line on Greeks, Chileans, or many of the countries in Latin America. Something about historical precedents where the US overthrew democratically elected governments to install compliant despots and juntas.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
post #4 of 128
Well I know certain people here ( no names please ) don't seem to get that the reason some of us are so upset with the way Mr. Bush is running the country is because we love america and what it's about.

If you ask me Bush's policies are anti american. The america I know would never do some of the things Bush does.
While it's true that we haven't always done the right thing I've never in my lifetime seen the cause of freedom so twisted.

America is the " Land of the free and the home of the brave ". 911 didn't change any of that! Preemptively attacking a small country ( and selling it to the american people with something that wasn't true ) isn't very brave. Being able to question said actions by anyone including the president is part of the home of the free. The freedom to question our own leaders if they aren't doing a good job of upholding the principles this country was founded on.

Also america was about choice for people who had none in the countries thay came from. With that in mind america shouldn't try to reshape the world in it's own image. People came here during the early part of the last century to get away from that kind of thinking. They have to want freedom to be truly free.

When you stray from these principles you are no longer the america we all know and love. You are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. You're something else.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #5 of 128
Kudos to jimmac for an excellent post which echoes my views exactly.

A true patriot.

Bush patriotism is false patriotism.
post #6 of 128
Fellowship,

I think that for one, this is a poor and deceptive thread title. It makes it seem like someone made the comment quoted and meant it, when in reality the quote is totally out of context.

As for the premise of the article, I have to take issue with it. While many events have certainly stirred up anti-US sentiments, the fact is that US pro-democracy rhetoric and actions in Iraq have aided Democratic movements throughout the region. While a Democratic government may turn away from the US, I believe it will serve our interests in the long term, espeically with regards to fighting terrorism.

I don't think that you can compare "Mr. and Mrs. Arab" as you put it to the American colonials. We have not colonized those nations, and we are not the ones who are oppressing them. Granted, we have supported dictators in the past, but calling for Democracy now is not only in our interests, it is the right thing to do.

This article seems a bit slanted to me. Not biased mind you, but slanted to a degree. Some parts that bothered me:


Quote:
"There seems to be this assumption that if you're pro-democracy then you're pro-US foreign policy, and that's incredibly misleading,'' says Marc Lynch, a political scientist and expert on the Middle East at Williams College in Massachusetts.

He's really making an unsupported statement there. I also tend to have little respect for middle east experts from Massachusetts.

Now for this rather lengthy quote, though I think it's important:



Quote:
As a secular and modern Egyptian democrat, Jihan Shabaan is the very image of the Middle Eastern citizens President Bush hopes will take to the streets and demand the freedom.

She says a lifetime without political eedoms, in which she's watched average Egyptians drift deeper into poverty, has convinced her to risk everything at the forefront of Egypt's Kifaya movement, which is demanding that President Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's long-time strong-man, step down and be replaced by a freely elected leader.

Beyond just Egypt

But for Ms. Shabaan and most of her colleagues in the movement, "enough" doesn't apply to President Mubarak alone. She expects a democratic Egypt would distance itself from the US, a long-time ally, and hit out at what she calls decades of "hypocritical" US policy in the Middle East.

"If things really change here, America's illusions that its interests in the region would be advanced by democracy will be laid bare,'' she says. "A real democratic government in Egypt would be strongly against the US occupation of Iraq and regional US policies, particularly over Palestine. We are strongly against US influence."

Who is this woman again? A leader of the movement? She expects a democratic Egypt would turn away from the US? What qualifies her statement? She doesn't know what a real Democratic government would do policy wise. And really, convincing that government to shun the US and our ability to help recognize the legitimacy of the new government (not to mention billions in aid) would be a tall order.

This article is basically just another prediction of failure on our part. Yet the fact remains that the fire of Democracy is spreading, albeit imprefectly and not without bloodshed. And that fire would not have been spreading, at least not as rapidly, without US actions in Iraq.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #7 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Kudos to jimmac for an excellent post which echoes my views exactly.

A true patriot.

Bush patriotism is false patriotism.

What is Bush patriotism exactly?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #8 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Well I know certain people here ( no names please ) don't seem to get that the reason some of us are so upset with the way Mr. Bush is running the country is because we love america and what it's about.

If you ask me Bush's policies are anti american. The america I know would never do some of the things Bush does.
While it's true that we haven't always done the right thing I've never in my lifetime seen the cause of freedom so twisted.

America is the " Land of the free and the home of the brave ". 911 didn't change any of that! Preemptively attacking a small country ( and selling it to the american people with something that wasn't true ) isn't very brave. Being able to question said actions by anyone including the president is part of the home of the free. The freedom to question our own leaders if they aren't doing a good job of upholding the principles this country was founded on.

Also america was about choice for people who had none in the countries thay came from. With that in mind america shouldn't try to reshape the world in it's own image. People came here during the early part of the last century to get away from that kind of thinking. They have to want freedom to be truly free.

When you stray from these principles you are no longer the america we all know and love. You are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. You're something else.

I don't even see what this post has to do with the thread. The fact is that US actions in Iraq, whether you supported them or not, have helped he cause of Democracy throughout the broader middle east. You cannot deny that, whether or not we went to war for solely that reason.

As I posted above, Democracy is in the best interests of the US and all nations seeking to defeat terrorism. That doesn't mean that the governments that emerge will be pro-US, but in the long term, Democracies tend to be more stable and less "anti-US" than do dicatorships.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #9 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What is Bush patriotism exactly?

"You're either with us, or you're against us."
George W. Bush

"Michael Moore should be tried for Treason."
"Dan Rather should go to jail."
"ABC should be fined."
"Why do tou hate America?"
Various morons on this board
post #10 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
"Dan Rather should go to jail."

Actually he should be sent back to Journalism school. Either that or the one where they teach you that CYA thimg.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #11 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Well I know certain people here ( no names please ) don't seem to get that the reason some of us are so upset with the way Mr. Bush is running the country is because we love america and what it's about.

If you ask me Bush's policies are anti american. The america I know would never do some of the things Bush does.
While it's true that we haven't always done the right thing I've never in my lifetime seen the cause of freedom so twisted.

America is the " Land of the free and the home of the brave ". 911 didn't change any of that! Preemptively attacking a small country ( and selling it to the american people with something that wasn't true ) isn't very brave. Being able to question said actions by anyone including the president is part of the home of the free. The freedom to question our own leaders if they aren't doing a good job of upholding the principles this country was founded on.

Also america was about choice for people who had none in the countries thay came from. With that in mind america shouldn't try to reshape the world in it's own image. People came here during the early part of the last century to get away from that kind of thinking. They have to want freedom to be truly free.

When you stray from these principles you are no longer the america we all know and love. You are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. You're something else.

Wonderful Post!

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #12 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
That doesn't mean that the governments that emerge will be pro-US, but in the long term, Democracies tend to be more stable and less "anti-US" than do dicatorships.

I don't think this is true at all.

Do a running list in your head of the world's leading democracies and see whether or not they are helping us out in our Operation Democracy: Iraq.

I don't really think a statement could be made either way because our foreign policy is such a mixed bag of pro-fascism and pro-democracy.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #13 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I don't think this is true at all.

Do a running list in your head of the world's leading democracies and see whether or not they are helping us out in our Operation Democracy: Iraq.

I don't really think a statement could be made either way because our foreign policy is such a mixed bag of pro-fascism and pro-democracy.

Actually I think that was my post. What I'm saying is that democracies are more stable and less agressive towards the United States. Are you disagreeing with that statement?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #14 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
"You're either with us, or you're against us."
George W. Bush

"Michael Moore should be tried for Treason."
"Dan Rather should go to jail."
"ABC should be fined."
"Why do tou hate America?"
Various morons on this board

Did Bush say any of those things? Can you show me specific examples of other pro-Bush folks that have said them?

Michael Moore is an asshole, but shouldn't go to jail. Dan Rather is an asshole that should have been fired immediately, but no jail time there, either. Rather is also on CBS, not ABC, unless you're talking about something else. And as for hating America, well, I might be willing to concede that one because it is my belief that there are a whole lot of folks out there that do. What else is to be said when someone seems to pray for the failure of nearly every US initiative simply because it is the policy of particular party or an idea that he/she disagrees with?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #15 of 128
It's been a couple of decade since any nation has been "aggressive" towards the US, so it's not that I disagree it's that your premise on the "aggressive" front is not logically sound.

Your original statement was "anti-US", and it's pretty clear that hating the US (or at least, not supporting the US) for its actions is pretty standard from democracy to dictatorship.

As far as stability, I'm going to have to once again say that it's not so black and white. Dictators can run very stable nations (Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, NK for the most part).

What you're looking for is respect for human rights, probably. Democracies are far more likely to respect human rights. And really, that's the most important thing of all.

There are very real consequences for our decades-long policy of embracing dictators for economic gain. I do not think we can truly move forward with a true peace aim in the middle east until we are willing to come clean on the past and present while making a concerted effort to not fall into the cycle in the future.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #16 of 128
I sit here and read this thread, and once again, I see a bunch of people droning on about how bad both Bush and conservatives, er "neo-cons" are and how everything that has been attempted by them has these ultra-harsh consequences... bla bla bla. You do realize this is just more of the same - any negative news is attributed to Bush or conservatives, right?

So I'm thinking, maybe for once we could present some alternative to the "Bush doctrine" that most here rail against.

And as a starting point, let's deal in the "here and now" , instead of dwelling on the "Bush Lied", "Bush is a war criminal". "Bush is an oil puppet" or whatever angle.

On that note, if Bush is guilty of any of that, then by all means, have him convicted in whatever court, after his term is over. This is what I felt should have been done with Clinton, if the allegations were true. By sensationalizing it now, you distract the government and desensitize everyone to it.

I will start, rather restart the discussion:

I read the story and I ask myself, "do these people really want the US to just pull out and leave? Do they think that would actually work out in their favor? Are they right?" And then I think. "Fine pull out, but pull out everything. Pull aid, pull troops, stop buying oil. If Mr. and Mrs. Mahmuud the Arab want that then fine, give them what they want." Reality sets in, and doing that would cause a tremendous vacuum that would swallow ALL sanity and order in that region. Of course, if that tact were taken, all chaos would be blamed on the US and it would spur even more hatred.

Let's also realize and agree that we did not arrive at these crossroads only at the behest of corrupt Republicans. No. As they say "It takes two to tango" Yes, Arab, European and Asian businessmen and politicians have lined their pockets with money and power over decades, without once considering the future. There is more than enough blame to spread around. It just so happens that the US is a convenient target.

We can't ignore our government's part in this whole mess, and at the very same time, we cannot continue down the "business as usual" path. Something has to give. But what?

I don't want to dwell on 9/11 either, but we all need to agree that it changed many things, including foreign policy thinking, and rightly so. We can't have our supposed allies harboring those that would plot against us.

So from where I stand, it would be hard for anyone to do anything in ME without thoroughly pissing someone off. 9/11 happens and Bush adopts a bold and controversial foreign policy in the ME. Bush implements his policy, and we find ourselves now arguing about it on an Apple forum. The fact that Bush tried something different IMO is a good thing. The status quo in the ME was just not cutting it.

I personally am all for gradually pulling out of ME affairs, if that is what the region's people want. Heck, even if they don't want it. Egypt and SA are what they are because of the West's insatiable appetite for oil, but China and all of the countries now going through an industrial age of sorts, can easily fill that gap. Buy in our own region as well as tap our own resources. Cut out the ME as a place that we have to meddle because of money reasons.

We should totally pull out of the UN, it's whole charter is pie-in-the-sky anyway. Form a entity that promotes more realistic goals, like democracy and trade. No more fanciful causes. Let the ME be unstable, that's the way they seem to want to be. Put SH back in power with all apologies and walk away. Of course, we will want to pay reparations, too.

Forget military alliances, let each nation stand or fall by it's own strengths or weaknesses. We shouldn't interfere with natural selection. Winner takes all and makes the rules.

These are some of my ideas on how to keep the US from meddling in unwilling participant's lives and futures. I can see some pretty serious consequences for these types of changes but, we would no longer be impeding upon the natural progression of world affairs.

Any thoughts?
post #17 of 128
From the outset I disagree with this whole "so what if he's a filthy liar and a war criminal, LET IT GO!" mentality and I have no interest in overlooking the brutal facts because it makes people uncomfortable.

Quote:
We can't ignore our government's part in this whole mess, and at the very same time, we cannot continue down the "business as usual" path. Something has to give. But what?

I think I made that fairly clear in my post right above yours when I said:
There are very real consequences for our decades-long policy of embracing dictators for economic gain. I do not think we can truly move forward with a true peace aim in the middle east until we are willing to come clean on the past and present while making a concerted effort to not fall into the cycle in the future.

How much clearer do I need to be? Honestly.

I am saying exactly what we need to do. It's right there. Read it.

We need to abandon our longstanding policy of embracing dictators for economic gain. Further, we need to come clean on our past and present behaviors to make it known that we are changed.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #18 of 128
i agree with fellowship and jimmac and the rest of you who arent affected by propaganda, swd2001 you are a government child.

nothing is left or right, right or wrong, black or white; theres no reason to try and refute what has been said in this topic. only someone with a learning disability couldnt tell that the "u.s. government" isnt doing things for the better interest of our country, our freedom, our people, etc. there are a lot of other better decisions that could have been made but werent because of personal agendas needing to be filled
post #19 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
From the outset I disagree with this whole "so what if he's a filthy liar and a war criminal, LET IT GO!" mentality and I have no interest in overlooking the brutal facts because it makes people uncomfortable.



I think I made that fairly clear in my post right above yours when I said:
There are very real consequences for our decades-long policy of embracing dictators for economic gain. I do not think we can truly move forward with a true peace aim in the middle east until we are willing to come clean on the past and present while making a concerted effort to not fall into the cycle in the future.

How much clearer do I need to be? Honestly.

I am saying exactly what we need to do. It's right there. Read it.

We need to abandon our longstanding policy of embracing dictators for economic gain. Further, we need to come clean on our past and present behaviors to make it known that we are changed.

I agree with your post, for the most part. But your beef is not with Bush in this regard, he has clearly shown that he wasn't going to embrace a dictator - It clearly cost the US more than just tolerating SH.

I also agree that just because a government is a dictatorship, that it is necessarily bad simply because it is what it is. But it's certainly true that most dictatorships benefit their dictators far more that the citizens under their care. Often lopsidedly so.

Quoting you: "Democracies are far more likely to respect human rights. And really, that's the most important thing of all."

It is amazing how similar that quote is to what Bush has been saying all along. I think that I could pull up a quote that is almost verbatim. Anyway, I am unclear again what the beef is - Bush's ME doctrine theoretically achieves this result.

Quoting you again: "I do not think we can truly move forward with a true peace aim in the middle east until we are willing to come clean on the past and present while making a concerted effort to not fall into the cycle in the future."

This is a combination of an observation interlaced with a jab at the current admin (I think) and smattered with opinion - I don't see a solution in there anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of it, but how do we come clean on the past and present? Specifics would be good.

How do we make a concerted effort to not fall into the cycle in the future? Once again, specifics.

Your statement is one of those that you kinda say "well... duh!" to. No offense.
post #20 of 128
NaplesX:

Quote:
I agree with your post, for the most part. But your beef is not with Bush in this regard, he has clearly shown that he wasn't going to embrace a dictator - It clearly cost the US more than just tolerating SH.

Are you asserting that Bush doesn't embrace dictators?
My beef is most certainly with Bush. He is a huge supporter of dictators and regimes abusive of human rights.

Quote:
Anyway, I am unclear again what the beef is - Bush's ME doctrine theoretically achieves this result.

Saudi Arabia?
Egypt?
Jordan?

Quote:
This is a combination of an observation interlaced with a jab at the current admin (I think) and smattered with opinion - I don't see a solution in there anywhere.

Yes. The solution is to come clean with our past and present misbehavior and move forward with an eye to no longer supporting dictators and other abusive regimes.

That is a plan. Stop supporting dictators. Withdraw support from dictators. What is unclear about that?

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of it, but how do we come clean on the past and present? Specifics would be good.

The removal of Mossadegh in 1953 and installation of the Shah dictatorship in Iran. Formally apologize to the people of Iran.

Support of the Ba'ath regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Apologize.
Formally apologize to the people of Iraq.

Remove support for the Saudi ruling class.
Formally apologize to the people of Saudi Arabia.

Formal apology for support of the Taliban. Removal of support from the Afghan warlords who we currently back.

Curtail the flood of military support to Israel and acknowledge the validity of Palestinian claims. Demand their compliance with the world court.

I could go on for a long while, but that would be a good start.

One cannot change without admitting mistakes. That is the first step and it cannot be skipped.

Obviously that would mean a hit to national pride and potentially the national wallet. But that's what need to happens if we are ever to be a true moral leader in the world.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #21 of 128
Took a second to get this, but I thought it was clever, and sort of fits today...

"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
post #22 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It's been a couple of decade since any nation has been "aggressive" towards the US, so it's not that I disagree it's that your premise on the "aggressive" front is not logically sound.

Your original statement was "anti-US", and it's pretty clear that hating the US (or at least, not supporting the US) for its actions is pretty standard from democracy to dictatorship.

As far as stability, I'm going to have to once again say that it's not so black and white. Dictators can run very stable nations (Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, NK for the most part).

What you're looking for is respect for human rights, probably. Democracies are far more likely to respect human rights. And really, that's the most important thing of all.

There are very real consequences for our decades-long policy of embracing dictators for economic gain. I do not think we can truly move forward with a true peace aim in the middle east until we are willing to come clean on the past and present while making a concerted effort to not fall into the cycle in the future.

I agree dictators can run stable nations. I don't think that US hatred is equal among democracies and non-democracies, or dictatorships or whatever you'd like to call them. I agree on the human rights point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #23 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by sickoperationz
i agree with fellowship and jimmac and the rest of you who arent affected by propaganda, swd2001 you are a government child.

nothing is left or right, right or wrong, black or white; theres no reason to try and refute what has been said in this topic. only someone with a learning disability couldnt tell that the "u.s. government" isnt doing things for the better interest of our country, our freedom, our people, etc. there are a lot of other better decisions that could have been made but werent because of personal agendas needing to be filled

Then why is the US Government doing things? Strictly for personal gain? That's absurd.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #24 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Then why is the US Government doing things? Strictly for personal gain? That's absurd.

Mainly to protect economic interest.

And it depends on what you mean by "personal gain". No one does anything unless it's for "personal gain", even the most altruistic are satisfying their own desire to be altruistic.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #25 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The removal of Mossadegh in 1953 and installation of the Shah dictatorship in Iran. Formally apologize to the people of Iran.

Support of the Ba'ath regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Apologize.
Formally apologize to the people of Iraq.

Remove support for the Saudi ruling class.
Formally apologize to the people of Saudi Arabia.

Formal apology for support of the Taliban. Removal of support from the Afghan warlords who we currently back.

Curtail the flood of military support to Israel and acknowledge the validity of Palestinian claims. Demand their compliance with the world court.

I could go on for a long while, but that would be a good start.

One cannot change without admitting mistakes. That is the first step and it cannot be skipped.

Obviously that would mean a hit to national pride and potentially the national wallet. But that's what need to happens if we are ever to be a true moral leader in the world.

Wait, you see, this is exactly the sort of thing that would just cause further strife and anger among yet more groups and nations.

The backing of the taliban was for military and strategic reasons. If we apologize for the actions there then we must then also say that we supported communism and thus tell the victims of it, that they weren't worth the effort.

Your points are well taken but I think you are simplifying everything way too much.

Curtailing military aid to Israel would mean certain death to them. Is that what you are promoting? Last I heard Bush was doing exactly as you ask regarding legitimizing Palestinian's concerns.

Your stance is very complex - first you say dictatorships aren't all bad, then you condemn bush for supporting dictatorships. Little confused here...

I am pretty sure that every nation that the US has had soldiers step foot on, is receiving some kind of reoccurring aid as compensation. But hey, if a "public apology" would mean that we could keep that money, I am now formally volunteering to deliver it myself on behalf of the US.
post #26 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
NaplesX:



Are you asserting that Bush doesn't embrace dictators?
My beef is most certainly with Bush. He is a huge supporter of dictators and regimes abusive of human rights.



Saudi Arabia?
Egypt?
Jordan?



Yes. The solution is to come clean with our past and present misbehavior and move forward with an eye to no longer supporting dictators and other abusive regimes.

That is a plan. Stop supporting dictators. Withdraw support from dictators. What is unclear about that?



The removal of Mossadegh in 1953 and installation of the Shah dictatorship in Iran. Formally apologize to the people of Iran.

Support of the Ba'ath regime in the 1970s and 1980s. Apologize.
Formally apologize to the people of Iraq.

Remove support for the Saudi ruling class.
Formally apologize to the people of Saudi Arabia.

Formal apology for support of the Taliban. Removal of support from the Afghan warlords who we currently back.

Curtail the flood of military support to Israel and acknowledge the validity of Palestinian claims. Demand their compliance with the world court.

I could go on for a long while, but that would be a good start.

One cannot change without admitting mistakes. That is the first step and it cannot be skipped.

Obviously that would mean a hit to national pride and potentially the national wallet. But that's what need to happens if we are ever to be a true moral leader in the world.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all a lot more receptive to making reforms than Iraq was, or North Korea for that matter.

What would be the point of apologizing? All it would do is stir MORE anti-American feelings. In addition, we supported certain governments when we believed the greater enemy was the Soviet Union (such as the Taliban). I don't think you can compare those circumstances to the current ones.

Curtail the flood of military support for Israel? Why would we do that? Besides, we have acknowledged the validity of the Palestinian claims. It is just that until recently, they haven't had a willing partner in negotiations.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #27 of 128
NaplesX:

Quote:
The backing of the taliban was for military and strategic reasons. If we apologize for the actions there then we must then also say that we supported communism and thus tell the victims of it, that they weren't worth the effort.

The wall went down in 1989.
The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 1994.
What are you talking about?

Quote:
Curtailing military aid to Israel would mean certain death to them. Is that what you are promoting?

You ask this question right after accusing me of oversimplifying everything?
I do not think a large scale-back in military aid to Israel would lead to "certain death" by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
Last I heard Bush was doing exactly as you ask regarding legitimizing Palestinian's concerns.

That remains to be seen.

Quote:
Your stance is very complex

Are you sure it's not oversimplified?

Quote:
- first you say dictatorships aren't all bad, then you condemn bush for supporting dictatorships. Little confused here...

When did I say "dictatorships aren't all bad" or anything like it?

Quote:
I am pretty sure that every nation that the US has had soldiers step foot on, is receiving some kind of reoccurring aid as compensation.

Be specific.


SDW:

Quote:
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all a lot more receptive to making reforms than Iraq was, or North Korea for that matter.

At this particular point in time, perhaps, but that has never been a deciding factor when it comes to US support.
And further, who are we to set a timetable?

Quote:
What would be the point of apologizing? All it would do is stir MORE anti-American feelings.

I don't think it would. Those who "hate" America already know about these "sins", it's not like it would be news to them. So who would be angry about apologizing?

Quote:
In addition, we supported certain governments when we believed the greater enemy was the Soviet Union (such as the Taliban). I don't think you can compare those circumstances to the current ones.

See first response to NaplesX.

Quote:
Curtail the flood of military support for Israel? Why would we do that? Besides, we have acknowledged the validity of the Palestinian claims. It is just that until recently, they haven't had a willing partner in negotiations.

That last part of the last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. Exactly.

You can have your unwavering, arrogant pride or you can have peace. Pick one.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #28 of 128
I guess this means we should have blown off the U.S.S.R? No grain, no trade no, treaties -- what?

How does diplomatic involment at nearly any level translate into creating and dissolving countries? What kind of inflated opinion of America's influence do you have to have to assume that Amercian sends in a couple CIA agents and these countries roll over? If it was that easy America would have remade the world in it's image a long time ago.

Hey, I've got an idea, let's just take our toys and go home anytime some country misbehaves -- Pakistan gets nukes? goodbye, we don't have diplomatic realtionships with big meanies. India likes drowning baby girls in bottles of milk, and keeps loads of decriminatory practices -- hey man, were off like a prom dress. Nevermind we might need to play China off India, or might need to keep oursleves relevant in that neck of the woods. Hell, pull our ambasadors, well settle for selling them our pornography.

More importantly, there is a subtext here of a moral code for dealing/not dealing with countries -- why not specificallly argue about that?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #29 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
What is Bush patriotism exactly?


You know exactly.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #30 of 128
("Try again. This time, more 'on-topic' and less 'troll'." - groverat)
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #31 of 128
grovey baby: This is from a goofle search for "taliban history" and the first link that came up was this - http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

To quote the article - "The Taliban's rise to power

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen."

And to be correct the aliance the CIA made was with the "mujahideen", precurser to the Taliban.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/us.html

This is a quote from the article.

"CIA covert action worked through Pakistani intelligence services to reach Afghani rebel groups._ That operation began after December 1979, when Russian forces mounted a surprise intervention in Afghanistan._ Fighting between CIA-funded Afghans and the Russians with their Khalq allies continued through 1988._ At that time Moscow, having suffered substantial losses and incurred excessive costs in the country, decided to withdraw._ The last Soviet forces left Afghanistan in early 1989, but warfare continued as the rebel forces contested with the Khalq regime for control of Kabul.

The CIA ended its aid in 1992, the Russians sometime later, and the pro-Russian government in Kabul fell."

So, it would appear, in this instance, you are totally off your rocker. The US government stopped funding to the Taliban in 1992, because the USSR pulled out from Afghanistan.

On this point, I am afraid you are decidedly wrong and off base.

EDIT: Oh yeah the Taliban seized power in 1996, not 1994.
post #32 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
When did I say "dictatorships aren't all bad" or anything like it?

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Dictators can run very stable nations (Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, NK for the most part).

Ok maybe I read into it but sounds like praise to me. So I just assumed that you were approving of that aspect. Thus the "not all bad" comment.
post #33 of 128
Quote:
The US government stopped funding to the Taliban in 1992, because the USSR pulled out from Afghanistan.

We did business with them.
We gave them tens of millions of dollars to fight drug production.
We supported the Taliban.

Quote:
Ok maybe I read into it but sounds like praise to me.

Obviously it "sounds like" praise to you. You would be very happy if I were to rejoice for dictators instead of posting what I post, because apparently you are incapable of dealing with what is there and far more interested in fabricating ridiculous windmills to charge.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #34 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
We did business with them.
We gave them tens of millions of dollars to fight drug production.
We supported the Taliban.

So, you don't care that we needed the then rebels to help defeat the USSR on that front?

You don't care that the Taliban were not considered "dictators" or at least dictator-like until long after the US was funding them as allies?

You don't care that we spend 100's of millions on the fight against illegal drugs all over the globe, not just Afghanistan?

As of 9/11 the US had spent $43 mil on fighting drugs in Afghanistan, in it's global effort to stop production. The venture was successful, in that it stopped production. But the Taliban failed to destroy stockpiles. One senator called it "a coldly calculated ploy to control the world market price for their opium and heroin." So the Taliban were not on the up-and-up. I fail to see how that is the US' fault.

You are going to actually stick with your stance even though you are WAY wrong?

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Obviously it "sounds like" praise to you. You would be very happy if I were to rejoice for dictators instead of posting what I post, because apparently you are incapable of dealing with what is there and far more interested in fabricating ridiculous windmills to charge.

Let's see... basically you are saying "Dictatorships are bad when the US supports them, but you gotta admire the way they run their stable countries." And in the past I am pretty sure I have read post/s by you that praise healthcare systems in such countries. Perhaps i am wrong and it was another of like mind. If so apologies. Point is, you clearly seem to see some upside, however minor. So the fact that I assume that you don't see them as all bad, in not a stretch.
post #35 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
So, you don't care that we needed the then rebels to help defeat the USSR on that front?

Learn some recent history. He's talking about the 90s. They weren't the "then rebels," they controlled almost the entire country. in 97 they had representatives in texas to discuss, obviously, the oil pipeline
post #36 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Mainly to protect economic interest.

And it depends on what you mean by "personal gain". No one does anything unless it's for "personal gain", even the most altruistic are satisfying their own desire to be altruistic.

Economic interest is still "US interest". What the newbie was implying, I believe, was that we take action for the personal gain of the people making the decisions in the administration.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #37 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
("Try again. This time, more 'on-topic' and less 'troll'." - groverat)

Ok I'll sum it up for him. Democracy shouldn't have to be forced on someone. That's what Bush has been doing. Also I strongly suspect this has little or nothing to do with wanting democracy for the middle east.

We who love this country and what it stands for don't like what Bush is doing. We're hardly anti U.S.

When certain parties say : " If you feel that way you must be anti american "

Wrong.

We're for america we're just anti Bush. They aren't the same thing.

Here's the title of the thread : "If you're pro-democracy then you're pro-US foreign policy"

So that's how it relates.

Better? If he can't understand it now he's just being difficult.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #38 of 128
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
[B]NaplesX:



The wall went down in 1989.
The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 1994.
What are you talking about?





We supported the precessors of the Taliban, the mujahideen, because the greater enemy at the time was the Soviet Union.



Quote:
That last part of the last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. Exactly.

I don't really understand what you mean by that. I was talking about lack of real leadership on the Palestinian side. In looking at my comment again, that may not have been clear.

Quote:
At this particular point in time, perhaps, but that has never been a deciding factor when it comes to US support.
And further, who are we to set a timetable?


Hold on, you're the one saying we need to stop supporting these regimes and apologize for various wrongs. Does it then follow that we should take our time doing it?






Quote:
don't think it would. Those who "hate" America already know about these "sins", it's not like it would be news to them. So who would be angry about apologizing?

You have to be kidding. It would serve no point whatsoever. Those who hate America are going to listen to an apology. It would be mocked and taken as a sign of weakness. Besides, as I've already argued, you can't just ignore the historical context of those "wrongs". Iran was far worse than Iraq was when we supported them. Like it or not, we need the Saudis right now and they are making some progress on rights issues.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #39 of 128
SDW, how can you be so worried about appearing weak, and not be worried at all about appearing dishonest, arrogant and selfish?

To me, integrity is a far better display of strength than muscle.
post #40 of 128
jimmac:

Just because he's trying to get a rise out of you doesn't mean you should let him succeed.

Now give me a hug, silly boots!

Quote:
So, you don't care that we needed the then rebels to help defeat the USSR on that front?

I think the idea was almost acceptable but it obviously was not handled well.

Quote:
You don't care that the Taliban were not considered "dictators" or at least dictator-like until long after the US was funding them as allies?

We were funding them up to 2000 at least.

Quote:
You don't care that we spend 100's of millions on the fight against illegal drugs all over the globe, not just Afghanistan?

Not really, no. Especially not now that Afghanistan could be under our control and the drugs are skyrocketing.

Quote:
You are going to actually stick with your stance even though you are WAY wrong?

How am I wrong?
I said we supported them and we did. If they were manipulating us then that makes it even worse.

Quote:
Let's see... basically you are saying "Dictatorships are bad when the US supports them, but you gotta admire the way they run their stable countries."

I didn't say anything like "you gotta admire the way they run their stable countries."

I said that dictators can run stable countries, because it's true. They can. Saudi Arabia is pretty damned stable. NK is pretty damned stable. For a while, Nazi Germany was really stable.

Quote:
So the fact that I assume that you don't see them as all bad, in not a stretch.

It's a huge stretch, and a transparent device you're using to avoid the fact that you cannot argue with the vast majority of my arguments.


SDW:

Quote:
We supported the precessors of the Taliban, the mujahideen, because the greater enemy at the time was the Soviet Union.

We supported them after they took over Afghanistan and became horrible human rights abusers. And destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha.

Quote:
I don't really understand what you mean by that. I was talking about lack of real leadership on the Palestinian side. In looking at my comment again, that may not have been clear.

No, I understood your comment 100%. You're putting the entire onus on the Palestinian side, which is the whole problem.

Quote:
Hold on, you're the one saying we need to stop supporting these regimes and apologize for various wrongs. Does it then follow that we should take our time doing it?

You misunderstood. My "timetable" comment was meant on how soon one would expect natural democratic reform within each nation. As in, "Who are we to decide that a nation isn't moving 'fast enough' so we need to punish them with war or sanction?"

Quote:
You have to be kidding. It would serve no point whatsoever. Those who hate America are going to listen to an apology. It would be mocked and taken as a sign of weakness.

Those who are ashamed of American activities would be heartened by such honesty. I know that because I am one of them. If Bush came out and apologized for the ouster of Mossadegh and installation of the Shah I would be extremely impressed.

Your logic mirrors a dictator's logic when arguing against democratic reform. It is prideful logic. It is un-Christian.

Quote:
Besides, as I've already argued, you can't just ignore the historical context of those "wrongs". Iran was far worse than Iraq was when we supported them. Like it or not, we need the Saudis right now and they are making some progress on rights issues.

If we are going to behave that way, with moral equivocation, then we don't have any right to claim to be the champions of freedom and human rights. We are merely players in a dirty game and we happen to have the biggest guns.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "If you're pro-democracy then you're pro-US foreign policy"