|
The attackers in Iraq (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ahlamalek |
rupert: word!
and when do you believe that Lula will be labeled as a dictator by the US?? hehehe |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
Yes, Chavez may have flaws but he is trying to do something to help the poor, trying to use oil revenues to get people out of poverty. But no, as in every other banana republic the ruling elite cant tolerate that a ruler would use the government to benefit the bulk of the people not just the rich and so they actively sabotage and try and bring down his government, of course actively backed by the USA.
The majority of the Venezuelans (the poor) love Chavez and of course the USA cant have any ruler who doesnt toe the company line and thus he is portrayed as a dictator.
The definition of a dictator is someone who rules without genuine consent, I think that would very much describe George W Bush, the american definition of democracy is "where the guy with the least amount of votes wins" |
Well you're right, i wouldnt call him a dictator yet, but what i do know is from my venezuelian friend... Chavez has already started a path towards illiberal democracy by changing the constitution through referedums, passing new laws and sometimes just ignoring it. in otherwards he is trying to make him self more powerful, more so then the law of the land.
and agian, back to my original point, just because the majority support someone doesnt mean its the right chioce (remember the hitler arguement?)... just because the poor like him because he gives them scooters and guns (yes thats what he gives them as aid) the are blinded to what he is really doing to their country. Its all about liberty and holding it's values above that of the government, which in turn creates true democracy |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
Yes, Chavez may have flaws but he is trying to do something to help the poor, trying to use oil revenues to get people out of poverty. But no, as in every other banana republic the ruling elite cant tolerate that a ruler would use the government to benefit the bulk of the people not just the rich and so they actively sabotage and try and bring down his government, of course actively backed by the USA.
The majority of the Venezuelans (the poor) love Chavez and of course the USA cant have any ruler who doesnt toe the company line and thus he is portrayed as a dictator.
The definition of a dictator is someone who rules without genuine consent, I think that would very much describe George W Bush, the american definition of democracy is "where the guy with the least amount of votes wins" |
Rupert, just in brief, I think you're associating cold war politics with present day politics and mixing up the intentions of the two. Yes at one point in time, the US supported anti-Communist dictators as much as the Soviet Union supported pro-Communist dictators. However, times have changed and politics have changed since. Secondly, stop trying to depict the US as a dictatorial regime ... the extremist, unsupported argument is getting kind of old. He won according to the electoral system, blah blah blah blah ... I mean really, how often do you want me to say the same things over and over again? |
|
|
| Eugene |
Democracy is hard to implement in a country (and region) that has never had any democratic traditions.
If you look at the history of European-carved Iraq, and even before that the history of Mesopotamia, you will basically see one bloody uprising after another, one crime after another committed in the name of power. It would be no exaggeration to say that the entire politics of the country (and first, the colony?) has been based on murder.
Iraq is actually an interesting case because during Hussein's rule it was the most secular (and therefore educated & developed) Arab country. Let me draw an analogy here to Stalinist Russia... the country was fiercely secular and anti-religious; the literacy rate was fully 100%, technology blossomed; women's rights were actually better than in the democratic US at the time, abortion was encouraged, etc. (BTW - in Iraq, Saddam also permitted birth control pills, abortions, women could drive cars, etc.) If a religious Shiite government is now (democratically) elected in Iraq the clock may turn backward. |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Secondly, stop trying to depict the US as a dictatorial regime ... the extremist, unsupported argument is getting kind of old.
|
Actually if you compare the US with the UK, here in America reporters and people don't dare to question the President's policies in a way as rough, blunt, and widespread as in the UK. I mean in the UK they have their Question Time sessions where the PM gets heckled and openly ridiculed. Here in America, people are still conservatively guided by a belief in higher powers and authority (recall how important religion is in this country), and you will never see reporters treat the President as skeptically as in Britain. To some extent I have to admit that Bush has considerable latitude in what he chooses to ignore, what he chooses to react to, and what he decides to do.
When Rumsfeld, in his heyday, used to pour scorn on reporters and successfully portrayed himself as a "hard-ass", American reporters generally shied away from asking tough questions or challenging his ideas and pursuing their questions. It actually took a British journalist, not long ago in an interview (probably BBC?), to get so tough on Rumsfeld - for the first time in his life, no doubt - that he had to "crack" under pressure and agree with some points made by the unrelenting reporter. Now THAT'S journalism, and freedom of the press.
I can find you an article about that, if you're interested. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
Actually if you compare the US with the UK, here in America reporters and people don't dare to question the President's policies in a way as rough, blunt, and widespread as in the UK. I mean in the UK they have their Question Time sessions where the PM gets heckled and openly ridiculed. Here in America, people are still conservatively guided by a belief in higher powers and authority (recall how important religion is in this country), and you will never see reporters treat the President as skeptically as in Britain. To some extent I have to admit that Bush has considerable latitude in what he chooses to ignore, what he chooses to react to, and what he decides to do.
When Rumsfeld, in his heyday, used to pour scorn on reporters and successfully portrayed himself as a "hard-ass", American reporters generally shied away from asking tough questions or challenging his ideas and pursuing their questions. It actually took an British journalist, not long ago in an interview (probably BBC?), to get so tough on Rumsfeld - for the first time in his life, no doubt - that he had to "crack" under pressure and agree with some points made by the unrelenting reporter. Now THAT'S journalism, and freedom of the press.
I can find you an article about that, if you're interested. |
I read the article actually ... so Britain has a more hard ass press. Maybe the American press is more timid. That has nothing to do with the FREEDOM of the press or our first amendment rights. Additionally, that doesn't change the argument. There are checks and balances maintained to limit presidential powers, there is a well defined method of voting an official into office, there are term limits in place, now please tell me with a straight face that it is a dictatorship. Give me a break, if you want me to make comparisons, I can point out how the EU is significantly less transparent and democratic. But really ... how much press time is devoted towards issues such as that? |
|
|
| Eugene |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
There are checks and balances maintained to limit presidential powers, |
Then why did Bush single-handedly declare war?
Seems to me an individual must be constrained by Congress in big decisions like this. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
Then why did Bush single-handedly declare war?
Seems to me an individual must be constrained by Congress in big decisions like this. |
He is constrained by congress. War was approved by congress with respects to this latest conflict, and in the event of any other conflict, congress must officially approve of any war within 30 or 60 days under the war powers act. However allow me to reference this thread (my last post):
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...rs&pagenumber=3
when I state that congress ultimately has the say on matters of war and pretty much any issue involving money. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eugene
Then why did Bush single-handedly declare war?
Seems to me an individual must be constrained by Congress in big decisions like this. |
Um, sorry to inform you but the President of the U.S. explicitly does NOT have the power to declare war.
Now Bush may have capitalized on a moment of hightened emotion to get support for his actions, but he cannot declare war. Congress is the only government body with the power to declare war. |
|
|
| daffodil |
*recalling 11th grade AP U.S. History class*
I'm pretty sure the president can authorize troops for occupation for up to 90 days -- after that Congress must declare war. I'm pretty sure this is a little known and mostly ignored fact because war was never declared in Vietname but American troops were there for more than 10 years.
Back to the basic issue, the President himself cannot unilaterally declare war. |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | and when do you believe that Lula will be labeled as a dictator by the US?? hehehe |
I dont know, provided he does what the IMF tells him and doesnt buck the system, he will probably be alright. But if he actually tries to really get stuck into tackling the rampant inequality in that society, in other words his actions match his rhetoric then you can stick a fork in him he'll be done.
| quote: | | Rupert, just in brief, I think you're associating cold war politics with present day politics and mixing up the intentions of the two. Yes at one point in time, the US supported anti-Communist dictators as much as the Soviet Union supported pro-Communist dictators. However, times have changed and politics have changed since. Secondly, stop trying to depict the US as a dictatorial regime ... the extremist, unsupported argument is getting kind of old. He won according to the electoral system, blah blah blah blah ... I mean really, how often do you want me to say the same things over and over again? |
No, nothing has changed. The fact that the Berlin Wall has come down has changed the ideology of the ruling elite of the United States not one iota.
The foreign policy of the United States in a simplistic nutshell is to prop up the elite in other countries provided that elite is compliant, protects american corporate interests and is not an embarrassment. When a regime outlives its usefulness, then the USA trots out the human rights stuff. The Cold War gave a veneer of legitimacy to US policy, if you were a poor person in a banana republic and you saw your countries wealth looted by the ruling elite and the foreign corporations you too would think that Communism is a real alternative with its talk of empowering the poor and international solidarity. Course the reality of Communist rule is much much different from the rhetoric.
With regards the USA's own government I dont necessarily refer to Florida although that is scandalous enough, I refer to corporate control over every instrument of government, the Executive, legislature, judiciary and the media.
After the US Presidential election, I actually read the decision of the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore which ruled in favour of the Republicans. The rationale behind the decision is so utterly elitist it is appalling. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by rupert
No, nothing has changed. The fact that the Berlin Wall has come down has changed the ideology of the ruling elite of the United States not one iota.
The foreign policy of the United States in a simplistic nutshell is to prop up the elite in other countries provided that elite is compliant, protects american corporate interests and is not an embarrassment. When a regime outlives its usefulness, then the USA trots out the human rights stuff. The Cold War gave a veneer of legitimacy to US policy, if you were a poor person in a banana republic and you saw your countries wealth looted by the ruling elite and the foreign corporations you too would think that Communism is a real alternative with its talk of empowering the poor and international solidarity. Course the reality of Communist rule is much much different from the rhetoric.
|
Well I would disagree, I would say that a lot has changed since. Certainly the US wants friendly governments, and supports governments that are favorable to American interests, but what country doesn't follow such a policy? If you want to equate that with Cold War regime building through direct military funding of oppressive dictatorships and CIA covert operations/assassinations then so be it ... I guess nothings changed :rolleyes:. What current day oppressive dictatorships is the US supporting to ward off communism? And please ... don't even try to say Israel heh. |
|
|
|
|
