Democracy

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Here is an article about the situation in Venezuela. Will US foreign policy never change? Articles like these do encourage people to believe doomsday websites.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/in...p;ei=5062&



Quote:





The president, though, still accused his foes of being "violent groups, supported by Washington."



The government here has been incensed since it was recently disclosed that Sumate, an opposition group that helped plan the recall effort, received $53,000 from the United States government. The money came from the National Endowment for Democracy, which had funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups opposed to Mr. Chávez.



Juan Fernández, an opposition leader, said Sunday evening that Sumate had nothing to hide.



"In Sumate's case, there was complete transparency," he said. "It was quite legitimate for them to receive funds from the N.E.D., which gives money to hundreds of civil organizations around the world in order to promote democracy."




Democracy is when less than half a dozen corporates own 75% of the media in a country and sponsor the political careers of so-called leaders. These leaders largely remain unknown until they get the funding and publicity as a result of these sponsored campaigns. Despite their short comings and inability to deliver anything other than a prepared speech, they get voted as the leader of the nation. Do these leaders have a say in the different policies of the nation? I personally believe they would be too ignorant to worry about it and act as the figure head they are meant to be. Why do we preach about democracy to nations who don't agree with us when we circumvent it?



p>s> Monday mornings are a good time to rant.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Is the National Endowment for Democracy linked the the US Government? No.
  • Reply 2 of 21
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    It's a private organization. I don't know where they get their money from but they don't set US policy. Also I'm not sure what all this has to do with democracy. Seems like this group in Venezuela is working within their system to obtain a political objective.



    But you know the US is either doing too much or too little so bash away.
  • Reply 3 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Is the National Endowment for Democracy linked the the US Government? No.



    Actually, the correct answer is yes.



    Edit: I realized I should probably be more clear. The NED was created by congress in the early 80s to overtly fund political activities instead of have it done totally covertly by the CIA. This is even explained on the NED website.
  • Reply 4 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    BTW: Seeing the film The Revolution will not be Televised is a must for understanding venezuela, although in some ways it makes it all the more confusing.
  • Reply 5 of 21
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    "Linked to the US government" and "set US policy" are two very different things. Only the government itself can set policy. Executive branch with executive orders, legislative branch with laws, and judicial branch through setting precedent.



    The NRA doesn't make policy. Does that mean they are in no way linked to the US government and have no influence over their actions? No...
  • Reply 6 of 21
    talksense101talksense101 Posts: 1,737member
    I am not saying that they set the policy for the government. Would you like it if another nation was funding your political parties using democrary or some excuse as the reason? Is GWB directly involved in the actions of these organisations? If not, who is doing the back seat driving?
  • Reply 7 of 21
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,923member




    Here we go.....
  • Reply 8 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Why is there still confusion about its role?



    The NED enables the US to give grants to foreign political groups that are in line with US policy objectives without doing so through the CIA.



    It's all explained on the NED website:

    Quote:

    In the aftermath of World War II, faced with threats to our democratic allies and without any mechanism to channel political assistance, U.S. policy makers resorted to covert means, secretly sending advisers, equipment, and funds to support newspapers and parties under siege in Europe. When it was revealed in the late 1960's that some American PVO's were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of ?a public-private mechanism? to fund overseas activities openly....



    The Endowment, though non-governmental, would be funded primarily through annual appropriations and subject to congressional oversight. NED, in turn, would act as a grant-making foundation, distributing funds to private organizations for the purpose of promoting democracy abroad



    http://www.ned.org/about/nedhistory.html
  • Reply 9 of 21
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001





    Here we go.....






    Hey! It's a valid point. They're going to be bringing up GWB's policies all year long ( it's an election year ). So you might as well get used to it.



    If Bush's policies can't stand the heat then he should get out of the kitchen ( Whitehouse ).
  • Reply 10 of 21
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Just because something has the word Democracy in it doesn't mean you should automatically assume that it promotes democratic things.



    Democratic People's Republic of Korea, The German Democratic Republic, etc were anything but democratic.



    Democracy's overrated anyway. Liberalism is much more important.
  • Reply 11 of 21
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    Yes, classical liberalism.
  • Reply 12 of 21
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Apparently NED funds were at work befor the coup in Haiti, as well.
  • Reply 13 of 21
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    The sad thing that I am noticing more and more, is that this president is being criticized for policies that have been in place over multiple administrations. Many of these policies have been widely accepted by both parties with not as much as a whimper. When Clinton was in office, most if not all of Bush's detractors said nil.



    Now after decades of disastrous events in Haiti and obvious mistakes by other presidents (read Clinton), no mention is made of that huge debacle and obvious mistake by that president. These are the same people that wildly supported anything and everything done by that president. Is it just a coincidence that he was a democrat? No, it couldn't be that simple. Could it?
  • Reply 14 of 21
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Kerry voted for "regime change". France wanted Aristide removed this time around. But Bush is the big bad man



    Is anyone upset that France is cutting oil deals with Iran as they rig elections and have been caught red handed with enrichment programs? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
  • Reply 15 of 21
    "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
  • Reply 16 of 21
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    The sad thing that I am noticing more and more, is that this president is being criticized for policies that have been in place over multiple administrations. Many of these policies have been widely accepted by both parties with not as much as a whimper. When Clinton was in office, most if not all of Bush's detractors said nil.



    Now after decades of disastrous events in Haiti and obvious mistakes by other presidents (read Clinton), no mention is made of that huge debacle and obvious mistake by that president. These are the same people that wildly supported anything and everything done by that president. Is it just a coincidence that he was a democrat? No, it couldn't be that simple. Could it?




    Did you really just defend Bush by blaming Clinton? I swear, one of the things that drives my NUTS these days about conservatives is that you'd think a) they have forgotten that any president ever existed before Clinton and b) they think Clinton was actually a liberal.



    At any rate, you're going to have to come up with something better than "It's not Bush's fault."
  • Reply 17 of 21
    Quote:

    Did you really just defend Bush by blaming Clinton? I swear, one of the things that drives my NUTS these days about conservatives is that you'd think a) they have forgotten that any president ever existed before Clinton and b) they think Clinton was actually a liberal.



    At any rate, you're going to have to come up with something better than "It's not Bush's fault.



    Did you really just defend Clinton by not reading his post and blaming no one? Are you really going to sit there and tell me that EVERY problem facing this nation and Bush in particular are all Bush's fault? Are you really going to sit there and tell me that Clinton did not do one not even one thing in his term that is still plaguing and harming this nation? Because if you are you really need to get your head out of what ever democratic ass you have it in and start using your eyes and thinking for yourself.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SilentEchoes

    Are you really going to sit there and tell me that EVERY problem facing this nation and Bush in particular are all Bush's fault?



    Clue:



    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Did you really just defend Bush by blaming Clinton? I swear, one of the things that drives my NUTS these days about conservatives is that you'd think a) they have forgotten that any president ever existed before Clinton and b) they think Clinton was actually a liberal.



    At any rate, you're going to have to come up with something better than "It's not Bush's fault."



  • Reply 19 of 21
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Venezuela is screwed up and their president is a travesty . . . . he will bring that country into worse poverty and ruin than it is allready



    He is a freak and a charlatan . . . and if you know anybody from Venezuela they will tell you about it . .

    they'll tell you about his long endless multi-hour rambling "press-confrences" where he goes on an on about himself and this and that and then calls people with money theives who just want to oppress everybody then back to him and what a great lover he is then his house and then back to kill-the-rich, etc etc



    He is BAD NEWS and I for one support any LEGAL form of opposition support . .



    and I consider myself liberally minded in most respects
Sign In or Register to comment.