Why Saddam Hussein didn't deserve your vote

[cantdog]

One thing I've always wondered about is just why are we so interested in bringing democracy to other countries? The usual argument--American altruism--is certainly laudible but is surely too naive to be the whole story.

A lot of our leaders cite the belief that democracies aren't as likely to go to war as dictatorships, but is this really true? I mean, the USA doesn't seem to have any problem sending troops hither and yon, and if war were so absolutely distasteful, we wouldn't engage in it so much.

It's hard to believe that it's pure altruism when there are so many things that are easier and more doable that we could do to help some countries. So what's this big deal about democracy?

---dr.M.

In this hemosphere, we do not help democracies. I go routinely to the Dominican Republic, where I work with and for Haitians in the country. Surely you will have seen the stories of how we've been targeting the elected democratic presidents of Venezuela and Haiti. We ousted Aristide for the second time. We already sponsored a coup in Venezuela, which the people rejected immediately. Chavez offered to invoke the OAS charter and intervene in Haiti.

A popularly elected leader in Brazil has been taking a lot of heat, as well, whereas the substitute we put in for Aristide is a cabal of warlords (last time a Duvalierist junta of generals) and the substitute we put in to push Chavez out was a group of colonels and generals, with a civilian figurehead.

We routinely oppose any hint of democracy in this hemisphere. Did it in Chile with Allende, putting in a fascist torturing strongman. That was raw enough to result in indictments for Kissinger and others for crimes against humanity. The US supported Duvalier and then Baby Doc for decades. Those guys were anything but democratic.

You can call this our American good will and benevolence if you like. It is, I believe, a very chilling sort of benevolence. I hope no one is as benevolent to me. "Bringing democracy" in the form of the guy running Haiti now is just sadistic.

cantdog

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Hey Doc

If I recall history we were very nationalistic until WWII. Once we got bombed it seemed logical not to let it happen again...only we lost our heads...dismissed 300 000 military personel...closed bases...and dismantled the field agencies of the CIA....and we got bombed again...damn it ..go figure.

For the most part we have been a Free nation...granted we royally messed over the Americans and the African slaves didnt get a fare shake...but it was a Republican Administration that freed them. I dont think the Indians did well until the Cassinos personally and we still ow them a lot of land...which slowly I understand they are buying now in the midwest...which I think is awesome.

The rest of the world has been the problem...Japanese Russo War...mediated by Teddy Roosevelt.....WWI....had to send troups in...WWII...had to send troups in....Korea...um sent troops in....Vietnam..felt bad for the frenchies...sent troops in....Kuwait...felt bad...sent troups in...Bosnia....felt bad..sent troops in......Bin Laden...Sent troops in to Afghanistan...Iraq...pissed off because sanctions busted and never finished with Kuwait....sent troops in

See we are the only ones that have the balls to go in...granted sometimes you do it so the world will work right....else we would all be communists...and that just doesnt do much for anyone here....

Blarneystoned out

WHAT ARE YOU ON ?

Before WW2, expecially right before WW1, we were the last one's hopping on the imperialism craze. We were happy with our little neck of the woods. We cam in at the end of both world wars risking relatively little for what we gained. The bombing was on a barely state military island that we responded with nuking two heavily populated cities. Sure it was neccesary,but...Listen, all these wars were fought becuase we were the superpower now and we believed in brinksmanship where if one land fell to communists, they all would. In the defense of this we screwed up Vietnam, Korea, The Middle East, and countless South American countries. Vietnam, felt bad for the frenchies??? C'mon, even base history classes will refute that. Even neocons refute that. Believe me, we don't go into wars becuase we feel bad about people, it's because our interests foreign or economic are threatened. Korea and Vietnam were anti-communism wars. Kuwait was to protect oil fields, Iraq was planning on raising prices when he seized them. That's why they're buddy relationship built up in the Iran-Iraq war fell through. Bosnia we sent in troops because Europe and the UN begged us to.

P.S. if you haven't noticed republicans and democrats have sort of switched platforms since Lincoln's time. The current republicans are the descendants of the guys who opposed freeing the slaves.

P.S.S. Oh, yes, we'd all be communists now if we hadn't fought in all those wars. Cause nothing like oh THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS proved that diplomacy handled things well. Listen with that many nukes pointed at each other, no one was going to lose one of their territories. All their were were neutral territories that we were too paranoid to let slip to one side or the other. The joke on us is that most of the countries that we kicked our ass for letting become communist are now very capitalist Eg. Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and slowly China.

P.S.S.S. We have no balls. Other countries have had structures toppled, capital cities invaded, blood on soil. We've had one Hawaiian base and one New York building. Wussy cheese-eating France took the brunt of battle for two succesive world wars. Almost all of the battles happened on their fields, in their cities, with their civilians dying. When in the second, germans marched into Paris pointed tanks at all of their culture and said "we won" that s when the french finally cracked. And in that cracking leftist reistance fighters fought the most famous guerrila war in our favor with the exception of the American Independence which we would have lost without French aid. Americans do not really know what war means and thus they believe that small losses overseas will spell invasion.

No one is going to invade us.

 

[shereads]

In this hemosphere, we do not help democracies. I go routinely to the Dominican Republic, where I work with and for Haitians in the country. Surely you will have seen the stories of how we've been targeting the elected democratic presidents of Venezuela and Haiti. We ousted Aristide for the second time. We already sponsored a coup in Venezuela, which the people rejected immediately. Chavez offered to invoke the OAS charter and intervene in Haiti.

A popularly elected leader in Brazil has been taking a lot of heat, as well, whereas the substitute we put in for Aristide is a cabal of warlords (last time a Duvalierist junta of generals) and the substitute we put in to push Chavez out was a group of colonels and generals, with a civilian figurehead.

We routinely oppose any hint of democracy in this hemisphere. Did it in Chile with Allende, putting in a fascist torturing strongman. That was raw enough to result in indictments for Kissinger and others for crimes against humanity. The US supported Duvalier and then Baby Doc for decades. Those guys were anything but democratic.

You can call this our American good will and benevolence if you like. It is, I believe, a very chilling sort of benevolence. I hope no one is as benevolent to me. "Bringing democracy" in the form of the guy running Haiti now is just sadistic.

cantdog

What Bush did in Haiti ought to be receiving a bit more press. (Evidently the liberal media are napping on this one.) Yes, Aristiside was presiding over a corrupt government. Duly elected, to replace the unelected corrupt government. That we "escorted" him out of the country under armed guard, against his will, is sort of illegal, isn't it? I guess not. War on Terror, weaponsofmassdestruction stay the course. The part of the mantra that doesn't work in this instance is, freedomdemocracy.