Ok fine.
But first, let the 22 UNELECTED leaders of Islamic States admit that they should allow free and fair elections.
Perhaps instead of worrying about Britain, and America, one should focus on a lifetime of denied rights…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ok fine.
But first, let the 22 UNELECTED leaders of Islamic States admit that they should allow free and fair elections.
[/QUOTE]
By your logic, shouldnt the US be distancing itself from all these tyrranical, unelected governments, or rather be preparing to attack them? What was so much worse about the unelected govt of Iraq that isnt so about the unelected govt of Kuwait? and Bahrain? and Saudi arabia?
Sometimes, a simple admission is more than enough rather than running around in circles looking like a fool. We still hear from the likes of Rumsfeld and Powell of the search for WMDs still being on.
Qadhafi of Libya just kissed america's feet, and all of a sudden this lifelong unelected leader is back in americas good books. Had Saddam done the same, he'd have avoided all this drama as well. After all, he was doing so till the late 80s.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ok fine.
But first, let the 22 UNELECTED leaders of Islamic States admit that they should allow free and fair elections.
Perhaps instead of worrying about Britain, and America, one should focus on a lifetime of denied rights...
[/QUOTE]
I think Akif has picked up on this hypocrisy already but just to put this into more context why has/does the US support tyrannical regimes like:
Algeria
Jordan
Panama
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Honduras
El Salvador
Uzbekistan
And more specifically the following brutal dictators were some of the favourites of past US governments, these tyrants murdered 100 000's of their civilians with full US backing:
Suharto - Indonesia
Nicolae Ceausescu - Romania
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos - philipines
Jean Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier-Haiti
Joseph Désiré Mobuto Sese Seko – Zaire
The US only ceased support for these unelected tyrants after the people from within the countries overthrew them.
True democracy in action against US interests.
So let’s not be so naïve and address the real issue, why is the US so against democracy, citing the examples above?
Yes the US and UK should admit why they invaded a soveriegn nation against the wishes of the world community and murdered so many innocents, let's hear it. Why didn't/don't they do the same for the above regimes, but instead backed/back them like they did Saddam for years.
Have a deep think OG and debate or are you gonna run like your compadres?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chota: *
The US only ceased support for these unelected tyrants after the people from within the countries overthrew them.
[/QUOTE]
LOL.... how very convinent
Lets not forget one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century, that of the cambodian dictator Pol Pot. Even when the Vietnamese overthrew him, US refused to recognise the new government. Some supporters of democracy.
mawarid,
I'm sure there are dictators from A through to Z that have been created funded and encouraged to annihilate 100 000's of their own people by the US. Yes Cambodia is another country where the US picks and chooses what it wants to be moral about.
Well Ohioguy, don't say you've joined the rest of your crew on their marathon run away from this subject, you guys keep bringing it up then start to run?!
Well folks let’s have at it.
First, have things really changed? I believe they have. Why did the US back “strongmen”, various forms of dictators, tyrants, juntas and slime? I believe the arguement is basically racist. That is that Brown people cannot govern themselves effectively. I believe this is basically a vestige of the British Colonial mindset. So the US simply chose the least objectionable, most maleable poltician in sight, and hoped that they did not get out of control.
Why did we settle for this, instead of promoting democracy? Much of the third world was rife with corruption, warlords, ethnic strife, profound poverty, ineffective judiciaries, and destitute economies. And unlike Asians, ie Tiawan, Japan, Singapore etc. there has been very little effort to invoke the rule of law, and to build the required pillars of democracy. (there is much that a country can do for itself). From a strategic world viewpoint, all of our efforts over the past 50 years have been devoted to defeating communism. For those of you who may not remember, the US and the Soviet Union have been locked in a death grip with nuclear power that could destroy the world many times over. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, we could scarecely look beyond the threat of world annilation.
So now that Communism has been defeated and discredited, what is next. Quite frankly, what you want and what we want are quite similar. If Bush were a better communicator, he would express it this way:
Our goal over the next 50 years is to export liberty, defeat or marginalize petty tyrants, and prevent or counter the threat of stateless terrorists.
For the sake of discussion, lets go over the five ways that “Liberty can be exported”.
First, we can confront highly objectionable and threatening tyrants with armed force. Witness the Taliban and Saddam. This not only rattles similar petty tyrants, (Libya), but sends a strong deterent message to other aggressive and dangerous tyrants. The lesson of deterence remember was the hallmark lesson of the cold war.
Second, we can denounce. We can take lesser tiered dictatorships, tyrants and totalitarian regimes and loudly denounce them. Witness the “Axis of Evil”. This is also a lesson learned form the dear departed Regan, who denounced the Soviet Union as the Evil empire.
Third, we can engage. By engaging lesser regimes such as Uzbekistan, we can offer both carrots and sticks. Frequently here we see people saying “Why are you in bed with that guy?”, refering to Dostrum or some third world type? The choice has been made to engage some country, because of its strategic location, or some mix of economic reasons. This does not mean that pressure to change will not be consistant and forceful, just that it will not take the form of publicly embarrassing rants. (I understand some people are sensitive to public humiliation). You may not like this choice, but it is not yours to make. This was the choice made with Saddam, and it of course backfired. This gives the rear view commentators a field day. So be it.
Fourth, you can plant seeds, and let them grow like weeds. That is the lesson of Iraq. A democracy blossoming in Iraq, or even Afghanistan will put incredible pressure on neighboring states. Imagine if you will, the first free open and fair election in the Middle East. (other than Isreal). THAT has to strike fear in the heart of every Emir, King, Leader for Life, and petty despot.
Fifth is the pressure of globalization. I am absolutely convinced that war was averted between Pakistan and India because India had so much to lose. With a burgeoning outsourcing and high tech industry getting a toe hold in India, all of that progress would have been instantly abandoned if a regional war had broken out. The pressures of the internet, global communications, and global commerce act as a stabilizing force in the world. People who have nothing to lose will fight. People who have lots to lose will try every possible solution before fighting.
For those of you who are interested in what Americans are thinking try out the following book, written by a neighbor of mine.
Or the recent article he wrote for Esquire:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
Laughable, the murderous dictators were/are supported as they murder/murdered countless 100 000’s of innocents.
Oh poor little US had/has to support them for the greater good. 
But but they are using Saddam’s generals to wage their war in Iraq at present 
and making alliances again with the taliban for shared rule in provinces across Afghanistan and still supporting dictatorial regimes across North Africa and the CAS…what to do what to do.
Oh poor little US when confronted with democracy in action (see Turkey’s parliment vote before the invasion against US bribery and France/Germany supporting the wishes of their populace) treat it as some vile disease.
And as for your quote above:
[thumb=H]notorture18153_8564535.JPG[/thumb]
Chota, you are the heckler in the crowd. Pointless, obnoxious, disjointed, unintelligible, and superficial.
While you may feel that Abu Graib was the worst thing going on in the world, it is not.
On individual issues, the US may well disgree with other democracies. that is life. On the other hand, bombs blowing up in Turkey, and Spain and France will be reminders that the chotic regions of the world have discovered a way to reach out and disrupt Democracies.
Neither France nor Turkey have ever been leaders in the modern world, they have followed, or have been dragged along.
Perhaps you are so hyper focused on your own Islamic world, that you fail to see a huge swath of Eastern Europe that was liberated when the Soviet Union collapsed? Most of these countries were run by puppet regimes, and they fell like dominos after 50 years of mortal conflict with the West.
Your constant belittling of the US is a nuisance, like a gnat in the eye of an elephant, but serves very little purpose. The real fact remains that tyrants are still running a great deal of the world, and there is absolutely no country which can influence a regime as the US can. Tht fact may bite your butt, but it is true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The real fact remains that tyrants are still running a great deal of the world
[/QUOTE]
Indeed and the majority under the close supervision of the US, the master tyrant spreading tyranny to ensure global control.
Central and South America, North and West Africa, South East and South Asia, CAS etc have felt and indeed are continuing to feel the effects of the US regime.
A cloud of gnats can obscure this mad blood thirsty money hungry elephant’s view as it races towards a precipice.
Don't hate democracy embrace it.
PS: Ohioguy remind me again why you think it was a good idea for the US to support these following dictators in killing 100 000's of their own innocent people?:
Suharto - Indonesia
Nicolae Ceausescu - Romania
Ferdinand Edralin Marcos - philipines
Jean Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier-Haiti
Joseph Désiré Mobuto Sese Seko – Zaire
Rremind me again also why the democracy in France, Germany and Turkey is not the 'right' type of democracy when it disgrees with American foreign policy?
Let’s look at the current situation:
American forces are using bases in Kuwait and Qatar, two great democratic nations to launch attacks against a tyrant. Well done. :k: While they are busy liberating the Iraqis from Saddam how about liberating the long suffering people iof Kuwait and Qatar.
Here is a list of other great democrats currently supported by America:
Mubarak
Musharraf
Karzai
Puppet Iraqi council
Qaddafi (Recently joined the list of countries to which liberty has been exported)
Algeria
Jordan
Morrocco
I always find it interesting that "support" means so many different things to different people.
Isn't it funny that even with 130,000 troops in Iraq, we cannot completely control the country, yet have diplomatic relations with the countries you have mentioned, and we are the puppet masters!
Let us look at the case of Saddam for a moment. If you referenece other threads, I have cited sources where the US provided 1% of the military hardware and 2% of the financing. Is that meaningful? Does it give us veto poer over Saddam? Should we simply ignore the regimes we do not like and walk away from entire countries? Why do you think that would improve things whatsoever?
Look at the state department Web Site. We have been speaking out about the human rights abuses in each of the countries mentioned for more than 10 years. Countries have to be in compliance with norms for human rights or funding cannot continue. Perhaps we should call for the radical overthrow of all these countries, but in case you missed it, Bush called for Democratization of the entire mideast.
And incase you have missed it, the Afghans are having elections this fall, unless the Taliban kills all of the elections personnel. And the Interim Iraqi Government is by far the most representative government in the region. You may not like the process, but it is better than anything else in the Arab world thus far. Thank you very much.
As far as Kuwait and Qatar, if Iraq has fully successful elections, how long do you think it will be before a ground swell of popular demand is seen for elections there?
Chota, shall we relive the past constantly? Please lend some original thought to what the US SHOULD do with it's existing relationships. Somehow you are always the critic, the heckler, but have no original ideas of your own....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
As far as Kuwait and Qatar, if Iraq has fully successful elections, how long do you think it will be before a ground swell of popular demand is seen for elections there?
[/QUOTE]
OG, sounds like you write speeches for G. Bush.
From the above quoted statement, do you mean Iraq was attacked as a test case, so it would push other mideastern countries to democracy?
America's attacks on mideastern countries have been opportunistic. Democracy is not an objective. Palestine has a democratically elected president whom the US refuses to deal with. Instead they are happy with a handpicked PM. Saudi Arabia has a hardcore tyrranical kingdom, and the US not only supports it, US also wants the popular public opinion suppressed, because should elections be held today in Saudi, you would for sure NOT have a US friendly govt...and the US would never want that...not in Saudi, not in Kuwait, not in Bahrain.
In Iraq, the US had gambled by trying to think it would be 'welcomed as a liberator', but the scenario is quite opposite to that.
Anyway, OG, the pretext of this thread was to get a simple admission of being wrong on part of the US. The US based its attack against Iraq on false premises. Even if we are to believe that G. bush had no way of knowing the premises were false, still, the hypocrisy shows, since on the one hand we have Iraq, where the UN says no WMDs exist, and on the other hand, we have N. Korea, whos leader openly claims WMDs, and long range missiles.....and who does America regard as a threat? Iraq. Doesnt make sense any which way you see it.
Oh come one this takes the biscuit.
Amerikkans denying they have puppets in middle east and around the world what a complete joke next they be claiming they have no military bases there also!
2 recent examples are enough to refute this ridiculous claim, current regime in Iraq is that not a puppet council, for the minority that going to claim this is a temporary council stop trying to kid yourself. Iraq has 14 military bases being built for the US occupiers aswell as the biggest amerikan embassy in the world and they claiming no puppets !
The current puppet in afghanistan karzai is he also not a handpicked puppet even a child can see the obvious!
Akif, some believe that it’s the lack of democracy in the Arab world that fuels the extremaists against America. The tagline that America is the crutch to the repressive Arab regimes is used by the extremists to recruit and build up their case for a Jihad against America. The new approach by the U.S. one which promotes democracy will hopefully help snuff out this burning hatred many have for America. Democracies aren’t whipped up over night and the policy to promote them is a long term one.
UTD....I dont necessarily agree with that point of view believed in by some. The term Jihad was invented in its current form in the 80s, in Afghanistan. And back then, it seemed that all 3 parties, americans, mideast rulers, and extremists were all in the same boat, with identical objectives. However, once USSR fell, the honeymoon was over, and coddling the extremists wasnt affordable for america anymore, which started with the first gulf war, led to Sept 11, and then led to the second gulf war.
Anyway, contrary to your statement, didnt the US try to 'whip up' democracy in Iraq overnight by attacking it? Wouldnt a saner approach have worked better? Right now, democracy is nowhere in sight in Iraq. The iraqi governing council is representative of the US, not the Iraqi people.
And again, the question remains unanswered though. Why bypass much more tyrranical and dangerous governments in order to 'liberate' Iraq? Why not take care of the more dangerous ones first?
^ Akif you know already Iraq was seen as a piece of cake by the British and Amerikans, they thought they could just stroll into a country weakned by 12+ years of sanctions whose military was severly diminished, a country whose infrastructure was non existent due thanks to the constant bombings Of Top Gun GI Joes over same time.
They thought we will come in make a blueprint of how to change countries and have control of vital resources. Unfortunatly for the kuffar the blueprint went a bit pearshape because the people in iraq dont have such short memories and problems faced by the occupiers was not forseen and they struggling to make inroads the people hate them, the occupiers are so dumb they cant see you cannot force a people to accept a system that goes against there nature!
Akif, you mention earlier that the U.S. "gambled by trying to think it would be welcomed as a liberator." That could have been the case had it not been for the poor post-war planning along with the greedy mindset of the Bush administration, and the U.S. has paid dearly for these miscalculations. That said, Iraq can still be a nation that won't live under a brutal dictatorship, some recent develops such as comments by Sistani supporting the Iraqi government are positive developments supporting that belief.
"Why bypass much more tyrannical and dangerous governments...?"
When going to war nations evaluate the cost, consequences, and rewards of war (or of not going to war). That means evaluating the political reaction (domestic and foreign), monetary cost, and military strengths of oneself and the enemy. If done right Iraq was a prime candidate where the 'cost' of war was ‘low’ and the 'rewards' were ‘high’, ie; removal of Saddam, end of sanctions, more positive view of America in the Muslim world = less recruitment of military Jihadist by extremists, etc.
The international pressures on North Korea hopefully will hatch a solution. When evaluating a war with N.K. the costs are higher than the administration was willing to accept unfortunately that could change quickly depending on the actions of N.K. some which could trigger the cost of not going to war with N.K. too great.
Let's summarise, the US has encouraged and carried out murder on a grand scale in Central and South America, North and West Africa and across South East Asia. They have plundered and murdered and encouraged wars throughout the Middle East and continue to assist butchers in Israel CAS and across North Africa.
The US ultimately through supporting despotic regimes has ensured economic growth for itself and in doing so deluded its own population into going to war again and again for more economic benefit.
Tell me is there anything more vile and evil than this?
And the excuse so far from our esteemed American members for this anti-democratic global hegemony is:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Our goal over the next 50 years is to export liberty
[thumb=H]notorture18153_8564535.JPG[/thumb]
This shows the extent of 'perception management' (read brainwashing) in the US populace.