SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Spreading democracy, I don't get it

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Spreading democracy, I don't get it (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=96539)

Spreading democracy, I don't get it

Minor rant:

Seriously, i don't get, understand, nor comprehend the need for this whitehouse administration's need to "spread democracy". For crying out loud it reminds of mormon's going door to door trying to convert people.

Other day i saw this headline of bush more or less saying to cubans, rise up and be a democracy! Rice in todays headlines is saying plenty of aid will come there way then they "chart a different course"

What f**king ever! What's it to use what government they have? They can be communist, totalrian, buddist, whatever, as long as they make decent neighbor's and dont stir **** up, who cares what they are?! Why does it matter?

I am so sick and tired of reading about how we're trying to "spread democracy". The word itself has become nothing but Bush administration rhetoric, much like the word, "freedom". Their continual usage of those words strikes any meaning from them.

It makes even less sense when "spreading democracy" involves guns, weapons, and the like....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Yeah i agree. I suppose the american way is the more friends the better.

The origin of the "spreading democracy" policies of the US draw all the way back to the cold war IMHO. The USSR had a "any communist country is an ally" policy and the US had a "any democratic country is an ally" policy. That way the two nations could gather allies to aid their cold war agendas.

It became more of a philsophical doctrine during the Korean War and Vietnam, when both conflicts pitted a communist regime attempting to take control of a democratic one.

It continued as the differenced between the human experience of a democratic citizen versus a dictatorship or communist citizen became more notorious. Traditionally...and this is a very gross generalization because both sides show all types of human rights grievances however... countries with non-democratic governments have a far worse history of human rights violations, higher levels of mistreatment and abuse, and greater poverty levels. China, North Korea, and Russia as compared to Japan, South Korea, and the US are the best examples. Saddam Hussien as the most notorious example.

Some may actually believe it as a good deed using the oprotunity to improve the lives of others. (with great power comes greater responsibility sortof thing).
Others would say that the "spreading democracy" slogan is used only as a catch phrase by politicians to persuade public opinion and achieve political/economic agendas under the guise of altruism.

The problem with the whole American policy of spreading democracy as it is supposed to have come from the Cold War is that the US is actually responsible for subverting democracy more times than promoting it. In fact the US has been helping to fund "friendly" dictators since way back in FDR's time. There are so many examples of this: Panama, Chile, Iraq, Gutamala and Honduras (the whole Banana Industry thing), Vietnam (yes Vietnam was a subversion of democracy because the Viet Minh were a popular movement regardless of whether it was "communist" or not), and the most notorious and well documented in recent memory is Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan revolution which brought the Sandinistas into power was a popular movement. Until 1979 Nicaragua had been oppressed by the Samoza family. Father then son had prosecuted a psychopathic regime funded since FDR. There is a famous quote which has one man saying to FDR "Why are we helping this bastard" and FDR replying "But he's OUR bastard". The sandinistas took power and esteablished a democratic process and a constitution and a policy based off of many socialist and, amazingly, catholic ideas. Quality of life improved drastically after the revolution.

However immediately the US began to fund the Contras (the military remnants of the Samoza regime) and gave them weapons and tactical education. The Contra affair saw the Contra's manual, provided by the CIA, revealed. It told them to target so called "soft targets". These targets included farmers, school, teachers, clinics, doctors, and civilians. The CIA said that it was better to attack civilians and hide in the shadows than attack the Nicaraguan Army directly. For 10 years the people of Nicaragua endured this unending terrorist campaign essentially prosecuted by the US through the Contras. By 1980 something like 70, 000 Nicaraguans had died as a result of the Contras. Eventually it lead to the election of a massive coalition headed by the Samozas. In effect they had wittled the will of the people of Nicaragua into voting for the old dictator in order to end the violence. Even then the victory was surprising. After that the reforms of the Sandinistas were dismantled and life has gotten worse.

I can't see how anyone can say that didn't happen. There is too much documentation. Also this was started by Reagan and continued by Bush Sr. the whole idea of "spreading democracy" is a sham in the US. The only time democracy is encouraged is when it is more convenient than supporting a de facto dictator.

Then there is the considerable Cuban-American expat community in Florida who would like nothing more than to see a democratic Cuba.

Personally i don't particularly care what type of government the Cubans want or whether the current dictatorial regime running that country allows them to have it, as long as they don't cause us trouble.

technically, the CIA is a terrorist organization. And no president or CIA director will ever fully know all the operations these guys carry out...or whose agendas they support.

In effect, the only way to control the CIA is through their wallet, and recently even that effort has failed since the CIA itself is purportedly receiving revenue from illegal drug trading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

After reading the rants from you and Scandium I really tried to see where your points of view come from and I now understand thanks to this article....just a snippet here...

"
In summary terms, Canadians who are strongly anti-American appear to be a) fearful about the influence of the U.S. on Canada, b) insecure as to their own identity – they need reassurance from a variety government-created symbols (such as the CBC), and c) these Canadians are more than a little envious of our rich, powerful, southern neighbour. Contemplation of the American elephant – sadly – brings out the dark side of the character of the Canadian mouse – envy. It is a sort of national penis (genital?) envy wrapped in a blanket of moral superiority that is the natural refuge of the woefully insecure and the truly weak. There are lots of good reasons to criticize various policies of the U.S. government, but surely reflexive anti-Americanism is unworthy of what Canadians want to be.
"
from: http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_N...es03310301.asp

Don't understand the need to spread Democracy? I can buy ANYONE here a one way to ticket to Iran if they so choose.

Peace Gizzmoe...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

After reading the rants from you and Scandium I really tried to see where your points of view come from and I now understand thanks to this article....just a snippet here...

Rants eh? Funny, I recall your attempts to try and see our points of view by reflexively dismissing them with no discussion about the comment, but rather a blanket dismissal and tirade on anti-Americanism.

This post of yours is a perfect example, you ignore completely anything either of us have said and instead resort to immediate character assassination. :down:

Quote:

Don't understand the need to spread Democracy? I can buy ANYONE here a one way to ticket to Iran if they so choose.

Peace Gizzmoe...

I have an even better idea, why not buy yourself a one way ticket to Iraq where you can help spread the democracy there. I'm sure the Iraqis will even greet your arrival with flowers and bullets... I mean candy. ;)

To spread Democracy you must have Democracy.

No matter how much one wants to, the USA is lagging behind Europe but trailing the same path and will sooner or later catch-up. So instead of any American worrying about spreading Democracy wherever, preventing the fall of the US to the "North American Community" must be the main concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

To spread Democracy you must have Democracy.

No matter how much one wants to, the USA is lagging behind Europe but trailing the same path and will sooner or later catch-up.

That is too simplistic a view for me. One could even argue that since WWII shattered all Europe, in a way America is one of the oldest democracies there is. However, forum witnesses of 2003 may remember :) , I see a widening gap between the politicial values the US was founded upon (as expresssed in the constitution, amandements, bill of rights, etc), and the political reality that often is in more or less open ignoration or violation of these values.

But to say it is trailing behind Europe is to simplistic, and also not true, considering the growing anti-democracy in Europe as represented by the bureaucratical elites and lobbies in Brussel that de facto run the show without authorization through any kind of election, and the death of national democracies by party interests replacing the community-interests.

I repeat a posting of a text that I have given some weeks ago, but it matches this thread, so here it has it's second run:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Found this in the Brussel Journal, but it was originally published in the Washington times three days ago. Although written from an American perspective, as a European I found it to be some interesting thinking, and I am far from opposing anything that is said. As a matter of fact I tend to express more agreeing than rejecting from my side.

Quote:

Is the European Union a democracy? The Europeans and most others will argue yes, but there are many different degrees of democracy. Many Europeans increasingly feel powerless when it comes to their national government and particularly that of the EU, and for good reason. Despite the fact that many of the nations of Europe are much older than the U.S., all of their democracies are much younger (with the partial exception of Switzerland), most have only been real democracies for the last several decades, and even less for the former communist states.
Many of the European countries have moved from a monarchal authoritarianism to a socialist authoritarianism, without really building democratic institutions to protect the individual from the government, like those that exist in the U.S. and Switzerland.
When a small group meets and votes for its leaders and almost all issues of importance, we call that process “direct democracy.” America had such a system in many towns, the most famous were the New England town meetings. In these towns, the citizens came together to make many of the decisions as to how they would be governed, including how they would be taxed and how the money would be spent. Most countries, including the U.S., now have “representative democracies,” whereby people elect “representatives” to voice their views in various legislative bodies.
Where the citizens know and can directly interact with their representatives, and the representatives fear they will lose their positions if they do not reflect the will of the local majority, the process tends to work reasonably well.
Many of the major European countries have developed a top down political system rather than a bottom up one. Top down is a system where a small group of political elites decides what it thinks is best for the people. France is a prime example. Most of the French political leaders went to the same, very small, elite school in Paris and developed a very tight “old boy network,” hence the left-leaning and so-called right-leaning leaders are all fans of “big government” where they have control. The parliamentarians are all very firmly controlled by the party leaders; hence, unlike the U.S., dissenting votes are rare.
In the U.S. Congress, the leaders are forever negotiating with their own party members, attempting to create voting majorities. Most members of the U.S. House and Senate have their primary allegiance to their own voters rather than to their party or its leadership.
In Europe, it is quite the opposite. The rank and file members of the parliaments owe their primary allegiance to their party leaders, because if they dissent, they will be kicked off the list of who can “stand” (i.e., represent) the party in a given district. As a result, elected representatives tend not to make themselves readily available directly to their constituents as is done in the U.S.
The British Conservative party leader David Cameron has just announced that the party will not push for tax cuts in the next election. The Thatcherite wing of the party is outraged and believes it to be both bad economics (which it is) and bad politics; but because of central party control, virtually all of the Conservative candidates standing for the next election will have to buy into the no tax cut position in order to be selected to run.
Another factor leading to non-democratic centralism in Europe is that public-owned and -influenced TV is much more dominant in Europe than in the U.S. As would be expected, the journalists in the public-owned TV stations tend to favor big government (which is natural since that is where they get their salary checks). The most famous and notorious public-owned broadcasting entity is the BBC. The BBC has several TV networks in Britain and is rapidly expanding throughout the world, including the U.S., because it has a direct source of revenue; that is, a very hefty mandatory tax on each TV set in Britain. The BBC is also greatly expanding its local news coverage, attempting to crowd out local newspapers. The BBC editorial and news positions are consistently hostile to those who favor limited government and lower taxes.
Thus, the free market democratic forces in Britain, as well as other European countries, are at a double disadvantage in that they need to fight the big state centralism, which can dole out favors from the public purse, and they are constantly attacked by the state-owned or -influenced media. Given that neither the political elite nor the media really like democracy, it and its necessary conditions are steadily being undermined in Europe. This democratic deficit has led to (or is a result of) excess statism which, in turn, has destroyed much of the economic vitality of the continent.
The one bright spot is the recent rise of limited government, free market activist groups, such as the TaxPayers' Alliance in Britain, and Liberté Chérie (i.e., cherished liberty) in France. These groups are led by intelligent and highly-motivated young professionals who understand the need for fundamental change and are willing to fight for it.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. I present a very simplistic view indeed, but you expect too much from two paragraphs! :rotfl: Let me show you what I see then.

If you wanted to destroy the USA, would you propose Americans to follow European footprints? No because you are smarter than that, the USA would probably never fall copying Europe, not knowingly at least, it would fall while pretending not to copy the EU's mistakes, following a supposed alternative wonderland.

You can probably smell the odor of a brave new world even through your monitor from this, a promised paradise, but behind the false words, lies the path to hell: http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...ica_TF_eng.pdf

Let me quote a favourite topic of yours:

Quote:

"The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers."

Does that smell like the EU to you? No? Then let me quote the rest of it and it will speak for itself:

Quote:

"Over the longer term, it should be possible to rethink fundamentally the systems for national control of intracontinental travel and trade. This will be particularly true if the three countries make genuine progress toward establishing a common security perimeter. North America is different from Europe, of course, but it is instructive that the members of the European Union have managed largely to eliminate physical border controls."

The EU does not need authorization to operate:

Quote:

The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of traffic, travel, and trade within North America."

Grab ANY half-decent poll and you will notice Americans want INCREASED border security with Mexico! Remember when the United Arab Emirates attempted to buy ports in the US? A few paragraphs above you'll read about the necessity of increasing security, and then comes this contradiction.

Hmm, didn't Mexico almost fell for Lopez Obrador? And now Obrador is calling for country-wide civil disobedience and organizing massive riots untill the Mexican electoral tribunal declares him to be the true winner. Isn't this the same guy who stated months ago he would accept any result including a difference of a single vote? He only said so because he believed he would win. This Mexico, which still has the PRI party, is going to federate, or "integrate" (use the disguised word of your choice), with the USA? What kind of utopic dream is that?! Will Obrador or whatever proto-dictator wins a future election paralize his country everytime one of his demands are not met? Will he instigate Mexican immigrants inside the US to do the same? Actually, he will. If you remember the May 1st illegal immigrant protests, the Mexican organizations behind them - "La Raza", "Lulac" (League of United Latin American Citizens), "Maldef" (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) and "Mecha" (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, "California will become a hispanic state: those who don't like it will have to leave" said Mario Obeldo, their leader) - receive donations from the supporters of the CFR.

Continuing:

Quote:

"We propose that the trinational summit become a regular event. Annual summit meetings among the three countries of North America will demonstrate the strategic importance of the North American community. We propose further the establishment of a North American Advisory Council to prepare and monitor action to implement the decisions made at these summits."

There you go. This North American Council could be later given legislative powers in a distant future, substituting the congress of the 3 countries, all very gradual of course, exactly like the EU which also started as an economic block. However, a few paragraphs above it states that there will be nothing like the European Commission, but return to my second quote and watch the EU be praised for its instructional value. There are other moments where the EU is invoked as an example. This duality and confusion is obviously intentional. Someone distracted might believe he'd be doing the opposite of Europe while in fact heading for the same direction.

Here's the rest of it. Enjoy your shock as you discover the US is indeed on an equal path of self-destruction, if only a few years or decades behind. Americans won't even notice when it happens, all will be well, all will be good.

http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...a_TF_final.pdf

Quote:

From Vision to Action: Institutions to Guide

Trinational Relations

Effective progress will require new institutional structures and arrangements to drive the agenda and manage the deeper relationships that result.
Canada, the United States, and Mexico already share a rich network
of institutional links. A recent Canadian government study identified 343 formal treaties and thousands of informal arrangements or ‘‘light
institutions’’ with the United States alone. Mexico has more than 200
formal treaties and agreements with the United States. There are many
fewer arrangements between Canada and Mexico, but the network of
contacts is still substantial and growing.
What is needed now is a limited number of new institutions to
provide existing arrangements with greater energy and direction. To
this end, the Task Force recommends the following institutional
changes, which complement each other:
WHAT WE SHOULD DO NOW

• An annual North American summit meeting. There is no
more succinct or forceful way to demonstrate to the people of all
three countries the importance of the North American partnership
than to have the Mexican and American presidents and the Canadian
prime minister meet at least once a year.

• Strengthen government structures. To ensure that the summit
meetings achieve their full potential, each government must take
steps to reinforce the ability of its internal structures to deal effectively and imaginatively with North American issues. Steps should include strengthening links between governments, as the three leaders did at their March meeting in Texas, by establishing minister-ledworking groups that will be required to report back within ninety days, and to meet regularly.

• A North American Advisory Council. To ensure a regular
injection of creative energy into the various efforts related to North
American integration, the three governments should appoint an
independent body of advisers. This body should be composed of
eminent persons from outside government [unelected "representatives"], appointed to staggered multiyear terms to ensure their independence [from voters?]. Their mandate would be to engage in creative exploration of new ideas from a North American perspective and to provide a public voice for North America [EU!]. A complementary approach would be to establish private bodies that would meet regularly or annually to buttress North American relationships, along the lines of the Bilderberg or Wehrkunde conferences, organized to support transatlantic relations.

• A North American Inter-Parliamentary Group. The U.S.
Congress plays a key role in American policy toward Canada and
Mexico, and conducts annual meetings with counterparts in Mexico
and in Canada. There is currently no North American program.
Bilateral inter-parliamentary exchanges can suffer from limited participation, especially by the most influential legislators. The Task Force recommends that the bilateral meetings occur every other year and
that the three North American partners form a trinational interparliamentary group to meet in the alternating year. The North
American Advisory Council could provide an agenda and support
for these meetings. To engage senior members of the parliaments,
cabinet members could participate when the agenda matched their
area of responsibility.

You can't say there is nobody trying to trail Europe.

Meanwhile, in Latin America:

Quote:

A los Presidentes y Cancilleres de los países del MERCOSUR y asociados

Los pueblos de América Latina avanzan hoy con firmeza hacia su integración haciendo por fin realidad los esfuerzos de los próceres de nuestra independencia para lograr la unión continental.

[Latin America advances beyond independence to realise continental union]

En este Primer Encuentro de la regional Sur del Foro de Sao Paulo realizado en Montevideo los días 6 y 7 de diciembre de 2005 y en la Cumbre de Presidentes del MERCOSUR que se reúne en Montevideo el 9 y 10 de diciembre, se consagran muchas iniciativas que son decisivas para nuestra integración:
- La incorporación de Venezuela como miembro pleno del MERCOSUR, que significa que toda la costa atlántica de América del Sur se integra en un solo bloque regional de más de 250 millones de habitantes.
- La creación del Parlamento regional, que significa que de la unión económica y comercial se avanza en la integración política e institucional.

[The creation of a regional parliament, meaning the advance from economical and commercial union into political and institutional integration].

- La puesta en práctica de fondos estructurales y el anillo energético.

(...)

http://200.155.6.3/site/temp_fsp/htm...Sul%20-%202005

Quote:

Interview with Heinz Dieterich Steffan, proponent of a Latin American union called "Regional Power Block", supporter of the creation of a Mercosur parliament.

Usted está recorriendo varios países de América Latina con el propósito de constituir lo que ha dado en denominar el Bloque de Poder Regional (BPR). ¿Cómo surge esta iniciativa suya y en qué consiste?

Cualquiera que estudie hoy en día la civilización burguesa entiende que los Estados nacionales pueden determinar muy pocas cosas ya. En Europa, por ejemplo, prácticamente toda la legislación viene desfigurada por ese bloque regional de poder que es la Unión Europea y eso sucede en muchas otras áreas ya sea por los instructivos del Fondo Monetario Internacional, del Banco Mundial, de la Organización Mundial de Comercio, o por los intereses de la OTAN; en fin, hay toda una estructura de leyes, de poderes fácticos de normatividades, como las normas ISO y FDA en Estados Unidos de calidad de producción, que hace que haya una jerarquía en la cual el Estado nacional ocupa el tercer lugar. En primer lugar está el Estado global que en su rama ejecutiva está compuesta por el FMI, el Banco Mundial y diferentes organizaciones de ese tipo como las ya mencionadas anteriormente; luego está el Estado regional que en América Latina está compuesto por la OEA y en Europa es la Unión Europea; y, finalmente, viene el Estado nacional. De tal manera que hoy cualquier propuesta política que pretenda mejorar la situación de las masas y ejecutarla dentro del Estado nacional es una manifestación de desconocimiento de la realidad objetiva o es una mentira política. En la actualidad cualquier propuesta de transformación nacional que no incluya al mismo tiempo el Bloque de Poder Regional, como dice el presidente Hugo Chávez, la unión del sur, el ALBA, es una quimera.

Usted viene de visitar Venezuela y de entrevistarse con el presidente Hugo Chávez. ¿Qué acogida ha tenido esta iniciativa del BPR?

La verdad es que el presidente Hugo Chávez es el principal promotor de esta propuesta porque lo que en un inicio puede haber sido una referencia histórica y de identidad la obra de Bolívar, hoy día renace nuevamente la concepción de la Patria Grande como precondición inevitable e imperativa para cualquier mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de las mayorías.

En otras palabras, el Bloque de Poder Regional retoma la propuesta del Libertador Simón Bolívar de lograr la unión de América Latina. ¿Hacia ese objetivo converge esa propuesta?

Sí, sin duda. Bolívar fue un estratega y era realista en sus percepciones, como lo fueron Lenin, George Washington, Mao y los jacobinos en determinado momento. Y como estratega Bolívar entendía que no había una solución local al problema del colonialismo. Inclusive se dio un famoso debate por carta con Santander cuando el Libertador requería tropas de Colombia para la liberación de Perú. Santander dentro de su óptica se preguntaba por qué hay que gastar el dinero y la sangre de los colombianos en el sur y Bolívar le contesta que es necesario entender que si no se libera a toda la Patria Grande del colonialismo, éste retornaría y recuperaría los territorios liberados. Se entendió, entonces, que la solución debía ser hemisférica. Igualmente todo el que está en la lucha práctica sabe que la política es una cuestión de correlación de fuerzas y que se necesita un mínimo de poder para cambiar algo. Ese mínimo de poder necesario solo nace de la unión, por eso Bolívar decía que si no se organizaba la América Hispánica en dos o tres confederaciones, tarde o temprano los Estados nacionales van a ser víctimas de las potencias europeas o de los Estados Unidos. Entonces en este sentido hemos entrado en el realismo político de Bolívar y de José Martí con toda su obra bellísima de pensamiento y de praxis revolucionario y dejando la demagogia de los partidos políticos vinculados al statu quo del sistema burgués del cual viven, hemos renunciado también a las frases vacías de los intelectuales que dominan los foros regionales y mundiales, supuestamente de protesta, para regresar a la conciencia de transformación práctica que el Libertador empleó igual que Artigas, que Manuela Sáenz, que el padre Hidalgo, para liberarnos.

(...)

http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=5623

Talk about bureaucratical elites and lobbies. How distant or violating is all of this from the values the USA was founded upon? Maybe these movements are farther behind because there is no strong utopic drive like the desire for an united Europe in North America. But the people wishing to dissolve nation-states into superior bodies is there, active and organized, nonetheless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

The reason you make it sound like a sham is that you over simplify things. Things are much much more complicated than you describe here since supporting a dictator might involve supporting peace in the region so that other activities can possibly take place. The Contra affair was in effect to try and stem the tide of drugs coming into the US, so this was actually a battle. Its main problem was that it wasn't approved by Congress when it should have been.

I could go on and on about this, but please try and keep your ideas grounded in fact instead of making accusations.

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I do - I want my Romeo Y Julieta #2's (A cigar).

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

I do - I want my Romeo Y Julieta #2's (A cigar).

-S

BAH! Cuban cigars are overrated communist workers get paid the same regardless how fine the tobacco is or how well it's rolled (burn, draw, how many times you have to re-lite it, looks). There are some fine cuban smokes though but never buy a box of them no matter what the brand you may be disappointed get a single and try it out, it can be hit or miss with cuban cigars.

Find a local cigar roller who can make what you like it is muy bueno amigo :arrgh!:

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread :D