US supports democracy when democracy supports the US |
| Posted by: h@ts | | Can any Bush supporters clear this up - Bush says he wants democracy in Iraq. But should America have overall control over the kind of democracy Iraqis are allowed? And should the US be allowed to overthrow - by opposition support, imposing crippling sanctions or even military intervention - any Iragi governments that doesn't fit into the image the US has of what a democracy should be and do.
I ask because the US is doing all it can to bring down democratically elected leader Chavez in Venezuela because Chavez thinks Venezuelan oil should be used to raise living standards and education standards of the poor and drag his own people out of poverty. A definite no-no in American foreign policy eyes - what would happen if this kind of nonsense caught on? (don't worry no US government would allow it).
I also ask because the Iraqis will have (by necessity) a much better understanding of US foreign policy than most Americans and will have seen the disastrous outcomes US intervention has had on many countries around the world. They'll also know very well what the US government will try to do in Iraq with Iraq's oil and state assets. They also know that the US has not spent all this money in Iraq to just pull out and let Iraq run itself.
The constitution signed yesterday will be meaningless to most Iraqis - they are getting their lives back together and concerned about such things as electricity and security and jobs. Sistani has already said laws passed under the new constitution have no credibility, a sure sign of the mistrust with US intentions to build institutions and structures to protect US interests.
And therein lies the real problem with democracy - if the US doesn't like a certain type of democracy and the coutry is weak enough, the US will have a hand in its downfall.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | The US brings democracy to the world! Noble words and much of the time that's all they are - words. Most of you guys don't want to know this but anyone interested in the other view of US foreign policy and how it has brought poverty, brutality, dictatorship and destruction to a small nation like Haiti then look no futher than the following article.
| quote: |
A few small [haitian] industries were still able to function, for example, making chicken parts. But US conglomerates have a large surplus of dark meat, and therefore demanded the right to dump their excess products in Haiti. They tried to do the same in Canada and Mexico too, but there illegal dumping could be barred. Not in Haiti, compelled to submit to efficient market principles by the US government and the corporations it serves... full article:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=11&ItemID=5115 |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | h@ts said this in post #1 :
Can any Bush supporters clear this up - Bush says he wants democracy in Iraq. But should America have overall control over the kind of democracy Iraqis are allowed?
You know what - i think it should. I dont trust the UN, neither iraqi clerics or any other party. I dont believe they will bring democracy to Iraq, rather follow their own interests.
What about the US? Yes, it follow it's own interest, which is making as many countries - especially rich ones like Iraq - be part of global market. This is the US interest. (apart from security and terrorism)
And should the US be allowed to overthrow - by opposition support, imposing crippling sanctions or even military intervention - any Iragi governments that doesn't fit into the image the US has of what a democracy should be and do.
If not the US, then who???
I ask because the US is doing all it can to bring down democratically elected leader Chavez in Venezuela because Chavez thinks Venezuelan oil should be used to raise living standards and education standards of the poor and drag his own people out of poverty.
That's exactly where Chavez failed and got toppled by his own people - unlike iraqis, venezuelians were not tortured and killed and were brave anough to go on the street and protest.
A definite no-no in American foreign policy eyes - what would happen if this kind of nonsense caught on? (don't worry no US government would allow it).
If you know ANYTHING in international politics and american policy, you would understand that well living in Venezuela benefits the US! Not only rich SAmerican would buy more goods from the states, the massive flow of migration would stop as well. USA is interested in economically strong neighboorhood.
But then again, you have to deny the obvious and label black with white to suite your ideology.
I also ask because the Iraqis will have (by necessity) a much better understanding of US foreign policy than most Americans and will have seen the disastrous outcomes US intervention has had on many countries around the world.
Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo? Truly disastrous outcomes.
Or maybe you wanna remember Vietnam and Japan? How about WW1 and WW2? What you can be sure about is that these events of the past are VERRRY relevant to today's problems. 
They'll also know very well what the US government will try to do in Iraq with Iraq's oil and state assets.
US government secured iraqi oil. Iraq is going to nationalise it's reserves and benefit iraqis. Any more questions?
They also know that the US has not spent all this money in Iraq to just pull out and let Iraq run itself.
No doubt US is going to maintain some level of hidden control over the country. Until iraqis are fully able to govern themselves.
The constitution signed yesterday will be meaningless to most Iraqis - they are getting their lives back together and concerned about such things as electricity and security and jobs.
No comments.
Sistani has already said laws passed under the new constitution have no credibility, a sure sign of the mistrust with US intentions to build institutions and structures to protect US interests.
No credibility at all. Evil empire will do anything possible to protect it's imperialist interests and to keep the working class under control.
Such .
And therein lies the real problem with democracy - if the US doesn't like a certain type of democracy and the coutry is weak enough, the US will have a hand in its downfall.
Saddam's regime was a certain kind of democracy in your opinion, did i understand you right? 
The US brings democracy to the world! Noble words and much of the time that's all they are - words. Most of you guys don't want to know this but anyone interested in the other view of US foreign policy and how it has brought poverty, brutality, dictatorship and destruction to a small nation like Haiti then look no futher than the following article.
Which proves USA's intentions to keep the world under control, even small nations like Haiti which don't even have oil... Wait a moment, why bring poverty, brutality, dictatorship and destruction to a country which doesnt even have oil? Probably for the sake of doing it.  | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | I like this part the most:
Putting details aside, what has happened since is eerily similar to the overthrow of Haiti's first democratic government in 1991. The Aristide government, once again, was undermined by US planners, who understood, under Clinton, that the threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty is eliminated, and presumably also understood that economic development will also be a faint hope under such conditions, one of the best-confirmed lessons of economic history. Bush II planners are even more dedicated to undermining democracy and independence, and despised Aristide and the popular organizations that swept him to power with perhaps even more passion than their predecessors. The forces that reconquered the country are mostly inheritors of the US-installed army and paramilitary terrorists. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
MrJukoVette said this in post #4 :
I like this part the most:
Putting details aside, what has happened since is eerily similar to the overthrow of Haiti's first democratic government in 1991. The Aristide government, once again, was undermined by US planners, who understood, under Clinton, that the threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty is eliminated, and presumably also understood that economic development will also be a faint hope under such conditions, one of the best-confirmed lessons of economic history. Bush II planners are even more dedicated to undermining democracy and independence, and despised Aristide and the popular organizations that swept him to power with perhaps even more passion than their predecessors. The forces that reconquered the country are mostly inheritors of the US-installed army and paramilitary terrorists. |
I will answer the other post later, but what is it particularly you like about this part in this post? Do you understand what Chomsky is talking about when he talks about the threat of democracy?
Are you saying democracy is fine just as long as its the kind of democracy that the US likes and those that vote anything else should go to hell, with a big big push from the US.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | |
| quote: |
MrJukoVette said this in post #5 :
I don't even know why i waste my time writing comments on this crap..... [/B] |
Like a dog chasing your own tail. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | Guess what - another ones joins the crew....
How? Ezzzz - just click on the fourth button....... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post
Can any Bush supporters clear this up - Bush says he wants democracy in Iraq. But should America have overall control over the kind of democracy Iraqis are allowed?
MrJukoVette said this in post
You know what - i think it should. I dont trust the UN, neither iraqi clerics or any other party. I dont believe they will bring democracy to Iraq, rather follow their own interests.
What about the US? Yes, it follow it's own interest, which is making as many countries - especially rich ones like Iraq - be part of global market. This is the US interest. (apart from security and terrorism) |
Of course you think Bush should control the kind of government Iraq gets. Just don't call it democracy.
So when Bush isn't controlling the "democratic" processes in Iraq and imposing only the kind of government acceptable to himself, because you and him can't trust "neither iraqi clerics or any other party" it's helping as many countries become part of the global market. Really? That's what he's doing is it - how's that then?
| quote: |
And should the US be allowed to overthrow - by opposition support, imposing crippling sanctions or even military intervention - any Iragi governments that doesn't fit into the image the US has of what a democracy should be and do.
If not the US, then who??? |
So yes - the US should be allowed to overthrow any Iraqi government it does not like?
| quote: |
I ask because the US is doing all it can to bring down democratically elected leader Chavez in Venezuela because Chavez thinks Venezuelan oil should be used to raise living standards and education standards of the poor and drag his own people out of poverty.
That's exactly where Chavez failed and got toppled by his own people - unlike iraqis, venezuelians were not tortured and killed and were brave anough to go on the street and protest. |
Chavez is a far more popular leader in Venezuela than Bush is in the US. He was voted in by his "own people" But you think it's okay for a rich section with US help to kick him out.
| quote: |
A definite no-no in American foreign policy eyes - what would happen if this kind of nonsense caught on? (don't worry no US government would allow it).
If you know ANYTHING in international politics and american policy, you would understand that well living in Venezuela benefits the US! Not only rich SAmerican would buy more goods from the states, the massive flow of migration would stop as well. USA is interested in economically strong neighboorhood.
But then again, you have to deny the obvious and label black with white to suite your ideology. |
What has "well living" got to do with it? You're saying it's okay to steamroller over democratic leaders because the guy you like didn't get voted in!
| quote: |
Sistani has already said laws passed under the new constitution have no credibility, a sure sign of the mistrust with US intentions to build institutions and structures to protect US interests.
No credibility at all. Evil empire will do anything possible to protect it's imperialist interests and to keep the working class under control.
Such . |
So despite a powerful IRAQI, who has huge support, say that the constitution is meaningless, you know better and insist Iraqis trust the US?
| quote: |
And therein lies the real problem with democracy - if the US doesn't like a certain type of democracy and the coutry is weak enough, the US will have a hand in its downfall.
Saddam's regime was a certain kind of democracy in your opinion, did i understand you right?
|
You understand wrong.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: asantana | | Rules of Democracy
1. “either you are with us or against us”
2. Be a Liar and if they find out you are laying, find another reason to justify your early act.
3. Force your believe on others.
4. If they are wealthy, take every thing by force, after all they don’t know how to take care of their wealth.
5. Shoot first and talk later. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: asantana | |
| quote: |
| The next U.S. Embassy in Iraq, scheduled to open in July, will eventually become the biggest American diplomatic mission in the world, U.S. officials say. |
thats Democracy
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: oneofpeace | |
| quote: |
| The next U.S. Embassy in Iraq, scheduled to open in July, will eventually become the biggest American diplomatic mission in the world, U.S. officials say |
Once this happens, mission accomplished. *insert theme music here*
This is exactly how it was called now wasn't it? Every day it's looking more and more like we moved in our own interest and not those of the Iraqis.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | | When the Us talks about bringing democracy to the world if you listen carefully you can hear what they are actually saying: America will bring US style capitalism to the world, that is - capitalism that benefits the US.
The NOBLE words - DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, LIBERTY that America likes to preach to the world are once again shown to be false. Information just released shows the US is pouring money into the pockets of the opposition in Venezuela, aiding them in their effort to depose Chavez, a DEMOCRATIC leader in a DEMOCRATIC country, a country who voted in a leader the US do not like, a leader the Venezuelans chose and is more popular there than Bush is in America.
Please you worshipers of America's noble act of bringing democracy to the world - explain Venezuela?!
Venezuela is a democratic country. Chavez stands for elections. He can be voted out in elections but this is not good enough for the US supported opposition because he challenges their interests. So when the bloodshed begins in Venezuela, think about who's helping to depose the the leader that the people want. Enjoy the show!
| quote: |
US revealed to be secretly funding opponents of Chavez
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
13 March 2004
Washington has been channelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims is an ongoing effort to build democracy and "strengthen political parties". Mr Chavez has seized on the information, telling Washington to "get its hands off Venezuela".
The revelation about America's funding of Mr Chavez's opponents comes as the president is facing a possible recall referendum and has been rocked by a series of violent street demonstrations in which at least eight people have died. His opponents, who include politicians, some labour leaders, media executives and former managers at the state oil company, are trying to collect sufficient signatures to force a national vote. The documents reveal that one of the group's organising the collection of signatures - Sumate - received $53,400 (£30,000) from the US last September.
Jeremy Bigwood, a Washington-based freelance journalist who obtained the documents, yesterday told The Independent: "This repeats a pattern started in Nicaragua in the election of 1990 when [the US] spent $20 per voter to get rid of [the Sandinista President Daniel] Ortega. It's done in the name of democracy but it's rather hypocritical. Venezuela does have a democratically elected President who won the popular vote which is not the case with the US."
The funding has been made by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) a non-profit agency financed entirely by Congress. It distributes $40m (£22m) a year to various groups in what it says is an effort to strengthen democracy.
But critics of the NED say the organisation routinely meddles in other countries' affairs to support groups that believe in free enterprise, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any form. In recent years, the NED has channelled funds to the political opponents of the recently ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that Washington was blocking loans to his government.
"It the sort of stuff that used to be done by the CIA," said Mr Bigwood. "I am not particularly interested in Mr Chavez - I am interested in what Washington is doing." In Venezuela, the NED channelled the money to three of its four main operational "wings": the international arms of the Republican and Democratic parties - the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs respectively - and the foreign policy wing of the AFL-CIO union, the American Centre for International Labour Solidarity.
These groups ran workshops, training sessions and provided free advice to three political parties in Venezuela - Democratic Action, Copei and First Justice - the leaderships of which have been at the forefront of efforts to recall Mr Chavez.
Chris Sabatini, the director of the NED for Latin America, claimed the organisation's aim is to promote democracy and "build political space". He told the New York Times that the endowment had been working with civic groups in Venezuela with no political ties and human rights groups.
Relations between the US and Venezuela have not been so tense since April 2002 when Mr Chavez was briefly ousted by opponents who had been supported by the US in the run-up to the coup. At the time, Washington blamed Mr Chavez for his own downfall.
Washington's antipathy towards Mr Chavez is fuelled by his friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro and his open criticism of Washington-backed free market policies. But Venezuela is also America's fourth largest supplier of oil - something that gives Mr Chavez a degree of leverage but, at the same time, makes him vulnerable to those who would like to see a more pro-American leader in power.
In recent days, Caracas and other cities have been rocked by demonstrations in support of the recall vote. Those intensified after the supposedly independent elections council ruled that government opponents lacked enough total signatures to force the vote. There have also been large and vociferous marches by thousands of supporters of the president who oppose the vote.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...sp?story=500711
|
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Advance | | We will get them started, once they can manage without our help, then we will leave. Once they don't need our help, we are just wasting our resources being there. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Advance said this in post #14 :
We will get them started, once they can manage without our help, then we will leave. Once they don't need our help, we are just wasting our resources being there. |
Get them started with what? A minority is overthrowing a democratically elected leader and the US is supporting this action.
Do you ever actually listen to your president when he preaches democracy. Don't you give a sh!t that these statements from the US president are just hollow words.
| | Reply To this Message
|
Iraq Forum: US supports democracy when democracy supports the US
|
