We still need NATO?

thanks for the reply. however, i do not believe the spech and the applause were the main focus points of my post. have u read the last part? because would really like an american opinion about it.

and regarding bush not writing the speech, i knew that but i am not convinced, as u said , that he even controls the main points of the argument

Indrid, please, stop. This not the folder to stop sensible, well thought out, inquisitive ideas !

Okay, about freedom I have yet this to say. The Muslim way of life, taking it's source in age old tribal customs and a deeply conservative religion, is not going to swallow that freedom rethoric that easily. Democracy can indeed be a serious menace to that way of life and I think this culture is not ready for it. I know that if I was Muslim I would probably reject it, otherwise I could not keep my wife in the kitchen very long while doing what I want outside

So it appears to me that Irak is not really a case of bringing the light freedom to the slaves, but forcing it down the throath of people who do not want it so much.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on March 14, 2005 10:41 am

You mean, you're not??!!??!!

Allah have mercy on you!

What I wanted to say Mabadesc is that the political system which the US is trying to enforce on the Irakis (much the same way as the Soviets attempted to enforce theirs on the Afghans) is conflicting with cultural and religious values and therefore greatly diminishes the chances of succes.

I got it, I got it. I was just joking.

Your statement has a valid argument, and I partially agree with it.

No offense meant, but if your overall voice and tone wouldn't be so tainted with anti-americanism and anti-republican comments (in other messages), you would have much more credibility in a lot of people's eyes. Not that you care, I'm sure, but I thought I would let you know.

For instance, your message quoted above has some truth to it and could provide a good basis for an interesting discussion. But for each such statement, you follow it up with 3 others in which you blame everything (including the obligatory kitchen sink) on the "imperialistic" US and its "evil" Bush-led government.

You'd be surprised to know that plenty of conservatives (including myself) disagree with some of Bush's policies and acknowledge that some mistakes were made.

Indrid, in response to some of your questions:

It's really frustrating to address this point because Europeans unknowingly equate Hollywood's garbage with the American people and with American foreign policy.
In truth, Hollywood is the number one critic and number one enemy of conservatives/republicans, and of the Bush administration in particular. Hollywood does not speak for the average american, and all of America knows this.

About war in Irak and the Middle East:

IMO, this is first and foremost a move to start creating a more stable Middle East, through any means necessary. As you know, anti-american feelings run high in the Arab world, and they were present before the invasion of Irak. They are rooted in the relation USA has with Israel and in the increasingly large muslim extremist political wing. Therefore, since this opinion is already prevalent, and was/is likely to express itself through terrorist attacks, the US is at least trying to stop state-sponsored terrorist groups by introducing (or imposing) secular, democratic governments. It's a complex issue, this is just my two cents...

As an american, I could care less if another country thinks the US represents them or not. First and foremost, the US needs to do all things necessary to assure a less dangerous future for itself. Whether you agree with their method or not, that's a different story

About democracy being born in Europe, that's a long debate and, once again, I don't think americans care. One could say that, although the birth of democracy originates in Rousseau's writings, and that some democratic principles were introduced in England after the decapitation of Charles I and in France during the French Revolution, in spite of these, the first large-scale, practical, stable democratic experiment occured in the United States. Lafayette recognized this as well. De Tocqueville, one of the many "fathers" of democracy, though a Frenchman himself, wrote the text "Democracy in America" while traveling in the US and examining its political structure. Finally, unless we reach the rarefied stratus of academia, people generally identify the practical introduction of democracy with Jefferson's writings and with the multiple authors of the Federalist Papers (Hamilton, Madison, etc.).
This is a moot point, however, since it doesn't matter who introduced democracy to the world.

You're asking for the opinion of an average American. Well, first off, terrorism is about instilling fear into people, and especially into civilians, thus preventing the country to run properly. The people who participated in the Boston Tea Party did not kill civilians and had no intention of placing fear into innocent civilians. They were protesting increased tariffs and taxation without representation. Gandhi also pursued a political goal, but he did so rationally and without violence, let alone blowing up people. So I don't think you can equate these events with today's muslim terrorists. Their goal is not really a political one. They don't want independence, or the opportunity to live peacefully. They are driven, I think, partially by revenge and partially by hate.
Given this context, and given the fact that terrorists will continue to kill people regardless of the US's foreign policy, it makes sense for the US to at least have pro-Western governments in the Middle East who will not sponsor these people. There is also the alternative that in today's world, with weapons of mass destruction easily attainable from rogue states and with russian nuclear weapons possibly being sold on the black market, it is imperative that the Middle East not have extremist anti-Western governments in power.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. You just wanted to know what an average american thinks, and I tried to convey to you what they think and how they feel. Whether you think that's right or wrong, that's up to you.

mabadesc i understand that from a citizen's point of view the Boston issues were ok. they are ok for me too. however, what i meant to say was that those people did a action that would undoutably have been considered terrorist by the contemporary FBI. and i have a hunch that Ghandi is not that well-liked in England. call me suspicious...

also i am amazed at the ratio of undemocratic measures that the american people are willing to swallow just for security. i meen really, what is a more likely scenario? to be killed by arab terrorists in NY or to be killed by criminals in NY? because it seems to me USA is building a fence so high that it will eventually entrap them. and entrapped beings tend to act irational. and to tell u the truth i sure would hate irational actors having so much nuclear power on their hands.

the federal services and CIA cannot seem to make up their mind on the colors. today is a blue day, no, orange, no, red....

and where is the citizen all this time? caught between the so-called terrorist threat and the criminals in the neighborhoods. not good. the result would be a terrified and trigger happy nation that would shoot all that moves for the sake of security

Are you so sure?

Revenge and hate against what? What triggered the reaction?

Well, I wouldnt know... did the US try to change its foreign policy to test the waters?
Spain did, and there were no more killings of spanish people. Ofcourse, people are killed all over the world regardless of Spanish foreign policy, but Spain worried about its own, not about the universal introduction of homo democratus. My point -- obviously there IS a connection between foreign policy and terrorism, you cannot say "regardless of...".



take care

Their goal is very clearly political. They want to live in their own country following their own set of ideas, wether we like them or not (and I don't). Do you think they shop heads, blow themselves up or fight against the odds just for fun ?

You will have to develop that a little. If you answer the questions hidden behind the curtain you may well have a clue what they are fighting for and against.

I'm curious what's your basis for this statement. I'm quite convinced of the contrary.

And here is the right moment to remind that Irak sponsored no terrorism and that pro-Western governements can be dictatures. And the ground immediately turns slippery.

I will ignore the anachronism in this question (the FBI having an opinion about the Boston Tea Party) and try to answer it. I don't see any contradiction in using "terrorist" ends to achieve democratic ends, though I do not think the American Revolution is the best example of this.

Certainly it would be seen as an act of violence aimed at reversing government policy. "Terrorism" may be a bit extreme, as it was only destruction of property. But I believe you are compressing the history of the American Revolution too much. The Tea Party was in 1773, before the start of the Revolution. At the start the rebels were not motivated by a desire for independence, and certainly not by a desire for an independent democratic state. They felt they were being denied their rights as Englishmen. They were not represented in Parliament, yet it was imposing taxes on them. It took time and an increasing loss of hope in a reconciliation for it to become a truly revolutionary movement, focusing on independence. Like other revolutionaries, they used the tools they had.

Of course, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter may depend on whose side you are on. Both the means and the ends matter. The American rebels did not cut off the heads of Loyalist sympathizers and publicize it in the newspaper, and they did not try to assassinate British officials. But the British were not doing this to them, either.

When US exports democracy it gives freedom to the guy on the street.
As part of the bargain, the country which imports US democracy has to relinquish any ambitious or self-made foreign policy and align itself with the empire.
Like in the old times.... Rome et al.
For the guy on the street the bargain is cool. He gets to watch zillion of TV channels, read newspapers and cheap gossip, curse the regime, etc. etc.
Which is not bad.
Anybody who wants to enter politics has to fall in line, otherwise has no chance.
This works wonderfully in countries that know these lessons very well -- usually in former communist countries. For 50 years they played this game of shadowy politics and unconditional allegiance. Their politicians have no headaches over falling in line and they adopt the democracy-speak very quickly.
This is useful because they know the locals and how to handle them. Rome accepts them and they accept Rome as long as she can give them support.

take care

Your point re former communist countries and political shadow play is well taken.

I ask u only to consider one point contra your apparent equation that democracy= U.S. (Roman) Imperialism.

The world's biggest democracy, India, as often as not goes happily its own way, rarely shows signs of even acknowledging U.S. foreign policy, let alone bowing down b4 it.

And they seem to have a very ambitious and self-made foreign policy. (Ask the Pakistanis, if u don't believe me.)

An anomaly? I don't think so. As a system of government, imo Jeffersonian democracy has the wierd tendency to promote self interest and empowerment of formerly disenfranchised people, rather than the opposite.

My sense of the bad taste "Democracy" leaves in some mouths is that is often confused/conflated with the system of the market economy....and the bad things that does to people...brutal unemployment, rapacious banking systems, etc. are laid at the wrong doorstep.

It's NOT solely the political system (representative democracy) that's problematic; it's the ECONOMIC system (relatively unchained market capitalism). I can't believe how many university educated people I've talked to don't seem to get this distinction.

And if u don't believe that market capitalism can wreak social havoc without democracy, I suggest take a close look at China!

It's all in the money, honey.

cheers.

I will ignore the anachronism in this question (the FBI having an opinion about the Boston Tea Party) and try to answer it. I don't see any contradiction in using "terrorist" ends to achieve democratic ends, though I do not think the American Revolution is the best example of this.

Certainly it would be seen as an act of violence aimed at reversing government policy. "Terrorism" may be a bit extreme, as it was only destruction of property. But I believe you are compressing the history of the American Revolution too much. The Tea Party was in 1773, before the start of the Revolution. At the start the rebels were not motivated by a desire for independence, and certainly not by a desire for an independent democratic state. They felt they were being denied their rights as Englishmen. They were not represented in Parliament, yet it was imposing taxes on them. It took time and an increasing loss of hope in a reconciliation for it to become a truly revolutionary movement, focusing on independence. Like other revolutionaries, they used the tools they had.

Of course, the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter may depend on whose side you are on. Both the means and the ends matter. The American rebels did not cut off the heads of Loyalist sympathizers and publicize it in the newspaper, and they did not try to assassinate British officials. But the British were not doing this to them, either.

i was truing to explore the direction of a very visible mutation, that is from a democracy in the making into a Security State.

But clearly there are not so many examples like China which you can single out for example. There is at least some level of correlation between political freedom and the freedom to wreak as much social havoc as you can

Well, didnt China show signs of independent foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia, although it shared its ideology?
Obviously China and India are not common occurrence in the global political system. Democracy or any other system cannot be imposed on them and if they choose it on their own they have a free hand in conducting their foreign policy, for obvious reasons. If they change it, the country at the center of the system cannot force them in line without jeopardizing the whole system.
Somehow a Hungary '56 was kind of impossible to apply to the chinese.
And an Orange Revolution also.

Therefore my equation targets the "lords of the system" - "vassals of the system" relationship, not the inter-lordship one...
OK, maybe I watched too much Stargate SG-1, but I think I made myself understood at least partially...



take care

Well, didnt China show signs of independent foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia, although it shared its ideology?
Obviously China and India are not common occurrence in the global political system. Democracy or any other system cannot be imposed on them and if they choose it on their own they have a free hand in conducting their foreign policy, for obvious reasons. If they change it, the country at the center of the system cannot force them in line without jeopardizing the whole system.
Somehow a Hungary '56 was kind of impossible to apply to the chinese.
And an Orange Revolution also.

Therefore my equation targets the "lords of the system" - "vassals of the system" relationship, not the inter-lordship one...
OK, maybe I watched too much Stargate SG-1, but I think I made myself understood at least partially...



take care

Sorry, u can't blow off a couple billion people by calling them "not common occurence"

My point is India is an independent working democracy. China is not a democracy, but does have a market economy, and yes, they have a history of going their own way.

Why not Eastern Europe? IMO your equation democracy=U.S. Imperialism doesn't hold water because u r confusing economic hegemony with a political system.

U were sold a market economy under the heading "democracy". Don't blame Thomas Jefferson for the depradations of George Bush, please.

"Democracy" has gotten a bad name in your area because what's happened under it's name has been the replacement of cradle to grave socialsm with a dog eat dog market. This economc system was pasted onto countries with little or no legal, banking, credit infrastructure and no, as u point out, tradition of transparency in government.

It's not so simple; playing a blame game (it's all the fault of the nasty American lords) might make u feel good, but it's not likely to help much.

Laying the bad things that happen in a "free" market economy at the doorstep of the political system of democracy only provides a scapegoat. It's the economy, stupid! (Clinton's mantra when he beat Bush I).