We only attack brutal dictatorships

[Red_Dave]

You mean like Europe during two world wars, Bonsia, and Kosovo? You mean like sitting idly by as other nations ask for help and protection through the establishment of a U.S. Embassy?

The free world depends upon free international trade. There is a lot of economies that are influenced positively by free trade. How much trade does England do with foreign countries? How much oil does England get from the Middle East? Without U.S. Embassies scattered throughout the democratic world some of these democratic nations would have fallen to aggressors and so would their trades.

The reason most other countries cope without controlling the rest of the world is because we do it for them and are bombarded by criticisms and negativity while doing it.

No i mean not controlling other countrys for the benefit of there your economy against the will of there people. Its really not that hard. When did europeans sit by idley during two world wars? If i remember rightily most of them where fighting in them.

I fail to see how englands policy is attal revelvant, not that england itself has a foreign policy, but still. If the free world depends on free trade than why does the u.s have to make that decision for them by overiding there democratic decisions. Isnt there a slight contradiction there? How on earth can you claim america is keeping the world democratic when it has suporrted countless dictatorships over the world and otherthrown democratic leaders?

 

[MSgt]

I fail to see how englands policy is attal revelvant, not that england itself has a foreign policy, but still. If the free world depends on free trade than why does the u.s have to make that decision for them by overiding there democratic decisions. Isnt there a slight contradiction there? How on earth can you claim america is keeping the world democratic when it has suporrted countless dictatorships over the world and otherthrown democratic leaders?

It's actually quite simple. Americans are not the only ones that benefit from a routine and secure oil supply from the Middle East, particularly, from the Arab elite in Saudi Arabia - the true lords of terror.

It's not a matter of "supporting" dictators. It's a matter of doing what is necessary at any given time for which more than just Americans benefit. Yet, America is the scapegoat for all the world's hypocrits who want to point. They do this as they pull up to gas stations or purchase items that have been exported by "dictator" nations that we "support."

 

[Red_Dave]

It's actually quite simple. Americans are not the only ones that benefit from a routine and secure oil supply from the Middle East, particularly, from the Arab elite in Saudi Arabia - the true lords of terror.

It's not a matter of "supporting" dictators. It's a matter of doing what is necessary at any given time for which more than just Americans benefit. Yet, America is the scapegoat for all the world's hypocrits who want to point. They do this as they pull up to gas stations or purchase items that have been exported by "dictator" nations that we "support."

You seam to be changing arguments quite alot as one second your saying america is great because it promotes freedom and democracy and the next second your saying america is great because it supports dictators and gives us oil. Surely theres a contradiction between the two arguments as if america was suporrting dictators for western greed [as we both seam to agree ] it would not be the international guardian of democracy, it would be more like the european nations during the imperialist era which you complain so much about.

Personally i dont own a car [and dont intend to untill non oil based ones become more widly availble] but i do use oil indirectly through public transport, if you can tell me a way to get around without useing oil i would be happy to hear it.

 

[Axismaster]

Looky here folks. Despite all of our flaws, we are still the greatest nation on Earth for one reason, our people are the most devoted to progress. Progress though does not mean socialized medicine, progress means free markets and free people.

 

[Red_Dave]

Looky here folks. Despite all of our flaws, we are still the greatest nation on Earth for one reason, our people are the most devoted to progress. Progress though does not mean socialized medicine, progress means free markets and free people.

If free markets are so great than why is there aparently a need to impose them on the poor against there will?

 

[The Real McCoy]

If free markets are so great than why is there aparently a need to impose them on the poor against there will?

Socialism is imposed on the poor against their will.. you can't make everyone happy all the time.

 

[Axismaster]

If free markets are so great than why is there aparently a need to impose them on the poor against there will?

There isn't because in a truly free society, they could form their own communes and co-ops. On the same page, people couldn't impose their market on us free marketeers.

 

[Red_Dave]

There isn't because in a truly free society, they could form their own communes and co-ops. On the same page, people couldn't impose their market on us free marketeers.

No i agree [execpt that i imagine the free marketeers would probably run out of workers, as the workers would be better off in the the co-ops/communes] but the previous poster seamed to think there was

 

[Red_Dave]

Socialism is imposed on the poor against their will.. you can't make everyone happy all the time.

How is socialism impossed on the poor against there will?. On the whole its those in the pooer parts of the world who support the left. Theres exceptions to the rule of course but look at how many socialist leaders latin america has elected recently and right through the 20th century. However the decisions these people have made through the ballot box have been been frequently overiden by america and free-markets have been impossed against the will of the people. Take general pinochet for example.

At which point did i claim that i could make everyone happy?

 

[Red_Dave]

Your link was not responding but if you're showing me what I think you were going to show me I've already seen it and it admits to the complacency of the CIA in funding the attempted kidnapping of a high ranking Chilean general which ended in his death, however, this general was killed before Allende had even been affirmed as president.

Closed door meeting between Nixon and Kissinger on the Allende coup recovered from the infamous Nixon tapes:


Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played. [21]

The CIA didn't directly support the coup.

Well the US ambassodor to chile at the time of the coup goes by the name of Nathaniel Davis and be wrote about his experiences in a book called "the last two years of Salvador Allende" which doesnt dispute the involvement of the c.i.a or the United States as a whole. Theres many other c.i.a funded coups against democratic leaders i could mention as well

 

[The Real McCoy]

How is socialism impossed on the poor against there will?. On the whole its those in the pooer parts of the world who support the left. Theres exceptions to the rule of course but look at how many socialist leaders latin america has elected recently and right through the 20th century. However the decisions these people have made through the ballot box have been been frequently overiden by america and free-markets have been impossed against the will of the people. Take general pinochet for example.

Well, since it doesn't work and we know full well it doesn't work, I fail to see the issue. The poor elect socialist leaders in hopes their conditions will be improved but in fact, all socialism really serves is creating an enormous government and stagnating the economy, dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

I'm aware of Pinochet but I'm also aware of your country's long, sad, imperialistic history. Let's try and get beyond that.

At which point did i claim that i could make everyone happy?

You didn't, I was just pointing the fact out.

 

[Comrade Brian]

There isn't because in a truly free society, they could form their own communes and co-ops. On the same page, people couldn't impose their market on us free marketeers.

The only problem is that communes have a tendency to run out of money to keep them running, because communes first priority is to the members, whereas in capitalism the first priority is profits and money. So the two would conflict. And also the fact that communes that are set up in capitalist societies are often dependant upon the capitalist system which has only slightly a communal basis, e.g. workers often collectively make products, e.g. assembly line. But a commune's basis is communalism which also heavily conflicts. So it is extremly hard for a commune to survive in a capitalist environment, though not impossible.

 

[MSgt]

You seam to be changing arguments quite alot as one second your saying america is great because it promotes freedom and democracy and the next second your saying america is great because it supports dictators and gives us oil. Surely theres a contradiction between the two arguments as if america was suporrting dictators for western greed [as we both seam to agree ] it would not be the international guardian of democracy, it would be more like the european nations during the imperialist era which you complain so much about.

Personally i dont own a car [and dont intend to untill non oil based ones become more widly availble] but i do use oil indirectly through public transport, if you can tell me a way to get around without useing oil i would be happy to hear it.

My arguments never change. I simply see things for what they are and my intelligence doesn't allow me to stand on the side line and over criticize. Life isn't black and white like so many wish it to be. For so many, America is this evil empire out to rule the world. For others, America can do no wrong. Then there are those that act totally disgusted every time America isn't perfect. I subscribe to none of this, because it's all foolish.

...and your point about oil is exactly my point. It is necessary and so is the steps my government takes to ensure it is there. Comparing American influence and presence to the colonializations of Old Europe is a feeble attempt at mere exoneration that we have seen far to often. Last I checked, we do not plant our flags on foreign soil and subject the local people to our way of life. Free enterprise is just that...free, and all benefit, not just America. The western world is a world of advancement. It is a world that cannot be stopped, because the overwhelming majority of the world wants to exist in a free society. The one's that don't are waging a war against progress.

 

[Red_Dave]

My arguments never change. I simply see things for what they are and my intelligence doesn't allow me to stand on the side line and over criticize. Life isn't black and white like so many wish it to be. For so many, America is this evil empire out to rule the world. For others, America can do no wrong. Then there are those that act totally disgusted every time America isn't perfect. I subscribe to none of this, because it's all foolish.

...and your point about oil is exactly my point. It is necessary and so is the steps my government takes to ensure its there.

But your still claiming that the u.s promotes democracy yet supports dictators because we all need oil [which we dont, we need to be wained of it] that sounds like double-think to me. Its not a case of america not being perfect its case of america being tyranical.

If you see properganda about the atosities commited by saddam husein *cough* with our help, you dont think "Meh saddams not perfect, lets not use him as a scapegoat" you think "ooh what an evil tyrant, we must liberate iraq" yet if america does far more damage to humanity across the world you think "Hey no ones perfect, stop sterotypeing us" Isnt that a double standard?

As for oil we wouldnt be so dependant on it if the governmet invested in alternatives

 

[MSgt]

But your still claiming that the u.s promotes democracy yet supports dictators because we all need oil [which we dont, we need to be wained of it] that sounds like double-think to me. Its not a case of america not being perfect its case of america being tyranical.

If you see properganda about the atosities commited by saddam husein *cough* with our help, you dont think "Meh saddams not perfect, lets not use him as a scapegoat" you think "ooh what an evil tyrant, we must liberate iraq" yet if america does far more damage to humanity across the world you think "Hey no ones perfect, stop sterotypeing us" Isnt that a double standard?

As for oil we wouldnt be so dependant on it if the governmet invested in alternatives

What damage? You mean what other leaders have done to their people? Just because we do business with another government that brutalizes their people, it doesn't mean that we endorse it. You act like we are only allowed to do business with governments that share democratic ideals. The whole CIA/Pinochet thing is old. How many of those have their been?

....and Iraq was more than just about saving Iraqi people.

 

[The Real McCoy]

If you see properganda about the atosities commited by saddam husein *cough* with our help, you dont think "Meh saddams not perfect, lets not use him as a scapegoat" you think "ooh what an evil tyrant, we must liberate iraq"

You don't need propaganda to know Hussein was an evil tyrant, his history does all the talking. The man had hundreds murdered so he could get into power. He had hundreds of thousands of his own people slaughtered and tortured. He invaded the oil fields of other countries for nothing more than greed causing the deaths of over a million more. This is not propaganda, this is fact.

I bet I know how you're going to respond to this one.

 

[Red_Dave]

You don't need propaganda to know Hussein was an evil tyrant, his history does all the talking. The man had hundreds murdered so he could get into power. He had hundreds of thousands of his own people slaughtered and tortured. He invaded the oil fields of other countries for nothing more than greed causing the deaths of over a million more. This is not propaganda, this is fact.

I bet I know how you're going to respond to this one.

Yeah i agree he was tyrant. What i was saying was that the same standards that the poster i was refering to applies to saddams tyranny should be applyed to america's tyranny.

 

[Red_Dave]

What damage? You mean what other leaders have done to their people? Just because we do business with another government that brutalizes their people, it doesn't mean that we endorse it. You act like we are only allowed to do business with governments that share democratic ideals. The whole CIA/Pinochet thing is old. How many of those have their been?

....and Iraq was more than just about saving Iraqi people.

The united states government helped many of these dictators get into power, trained there secret police and gave them resources, surely that makes it responsible for what has happend in these countrys. The C.I.A pinochet thing is old [though not very, many of those responsible are still alive] but its part of an ongoing pattern and therefore revlevant to how we interpret things today

 

[MSgt]

The united states government helped many of these dictators get into power, trained there secret police and gave them resources, surely that makes it responsible for what has happend in these countrys. The C.I.A pinochet thing is old [though not very, many of those responsible are still alive] but its part of an ongoing pattern and therefore revlevant to how we interpret things today

You said many dictators. How many? Let's crunch the numbers. Let's dispense with this passed on rumor that paints a much worse picture than it is. How many has there been?

 

[Red_Dave]

You said many dictators. How many? Let's crunch the numbers. Let's dispense with this passed on rumor that paints a much worse picture than it is. How many has there been?

Well ive never counted myself but i know america suporrted dictators in cuba , chile, gutamela,iraq,grenada saudi arabia [if absolute monarchys count as dictatorships] and many african countrys.

 

[Red_Dave]

Well, since it doesn't work and we know full well it doesn't work, I fail to see the issue. The poor elect socialist leaders in hopes their conditions will be improved but in fact, all socialism really serves is creating an enormous government and stagnating the economy, dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

I'm aware of Pinochet but I'm also aware of your country's long, sad, imperialistic history. Let's try and get beyond that.




You didn't, I was just pointing the fact out.

Well if it was absolute that socialism didnt work people wouldnt keep voteing for socialist politions despite the tendancy of the C.I.A to kill them. The issue is that it is greedy chauvinist an undemocratic to overide and make decisions that should be made by a countrys electorate so that your multinationals can get money. Im amazed anyone can see pilleaging the third world as acceptable

 

[MSgt]

Well ive never counted myself but i know america suporrted dictators in cuba , chile, gutamela,iraq,grenada saudi arabia [if absolute monarchys count as dictatorships] and many african countrys.

No..no..no. What you are doing is using diplomacy to further your argument. Like I have said...just because we choose to do business with governments does not mean we "support" what they do to their people. Ironically, many people are opposed to war and scream for diplomacy. Diplomacy often encompasses the appeasement of a dictator's internal treatment of his people.

If you are going to continue to use this desperate argument you have to include Russia. During WWII, we "supported" communism to save Europe. After WWII, because Europe had seen enough war, we "supported" communism by allowing them to condemn eastern Europe behind the Berlin wall, despite the fact that WWII was about ridding Europe of the oppression and cruelty of another force.

Now, back to the question....How many dictators is America responsible for? I believe we were discussing installments by the CIA. Those countries you mentioned is more of the same - Find a country with a dictator where America has a presence and blame America. Blame America...blame America...blame America.

 

[Red_Dave]

No..no..no. What you are doing is using diplomacy to further your argument. Like I have said...just because we choose to do business with governments does not mean we "support" what they do to their people. Ironically, many people are opposed to war and scream for diplomacy. Diplomacy often encompasses the appeasement of a dictator's internal treatment of his people.

If you are going to continue to use this desperate argument you have to include Russia. During WWII, we "supported" communism to save Europe. After WWII, because Europe had seen enough war, we "supported" communism by allowing them to condemn eastern Europe behind the Berlin wall, despite the fact that WWII was about ridding Europe of the oppression and cruelty of another force.

Now, back to the question....How many dictators is America responsible for? I believe we were discussing installments by the CIA.

Well Batista [cuba] was helped by the cia to stay in power unconsitutionally, Pinochets coup was suporrted by the cia . Jacob Arbenz was overthrown by the cia and replaced by Carlos Castillo Armas. Im not blameing america out of prejudice im blameing them because if you put a dictatorship into place which mass murders people, thats your fault. Thats 3 dictatorships that the u.s is directly responsible for and there are many others that wouldnt have been as sucessful as they where, where it not for us help. If your putting dictatorships in place and giveing them weapons surely that means your suporrting there actions?

 

[MSgt]

Well Batista [cuba] was helped by the cia to stay in power unconsitutionally, Pinochets coup was suporrted by the cia . Jacob Arbenz was overthrown by the cia and replaced by Carlos Castillo Armas. Im not blameing america out of prejudice im blameing them because if you put a dictatorship into place which mass murders people, thats your fault. Thats 3 dictatorships that the u.s is directly responsible for and there are many others that wouldnt have been as sucessful as they where, where it not for us help. If your putting dictatorships in place and giveing them weapons surely that means your suporrting there actions?

Not necessarily true. We gave Saddam a means to repel Iranian forces, because the world needed these countries to remain stable and America did not want to see a victorious Iran. Does this mean we support what Saddam did to his Kurds? But with all deals with evil men, bad consequences are always possible.

 

[Red_Dave]

Not necessarily true. We gave Saddam a means to repel Iranian forces, because the world needed these countries to remain stable and America did not want to see a victorious Iran. Does this mean we support what Saddam did to his Kurds? But with all deals with evil men, bad consequences are always possible.

Then what about the dictatorships i mentioned that america put into place?