The Bush premise is to spread Democracy with constitional law throughout the world- particularly in Islamic nations.

The Ahmadinejad premise is to spread Islamic theocracy with Sharia law throughout the world- particularly in Islamic nations.

Democracy as defined by Bush is rule by majority with protection of the minority by constitutional law.

Democracy as defined by Ahmadinejad is majority rule- under Sharia law- period.

So is it helping or hurting the Bush mission to be defined as spreading Democracy, when it can be perveted by a terrorist government winning a democratic election as has already happened in Palestine with Hamas and is looming in Lebanon with Hezbolla and may yet result in Iraq and Afghanistan?

An even longer range issue is whether the U.S. and U.K. can rally sufficient ideological support for the Bush mission even from traditionaly western democratic nations dominated by a secular-progressive-humanist political paradigm supporting a pacifist, socialist world view- much less from all the non-aligned countries?

Compare the fractured "democratic" ideological base with the scale and passion of the Islamist ideological, monolithic base which Ahmadinejad has and the global infrastructure of mosques for spreading his Jihadi. Add to his advantage the potential for controlling the vast wealth of the combined oil reserves of the entire Middle East and the complicity of Russia and China in supplying him with whatever technology and military weaponry (including nuclear) he can afford- and the prospect of Jihadi hegemony over the entire middle east as a base for exporting global terrorism is very real indeed.

Is this an accurate picture of reality and if so what are our immediate options?

****

You're using the word fascism incorrectly (it grows from within) but your point is well taken. It's simply a conquest and an occupation, the same as the French did to the English in 1066.

Many commentators have noted that both Hamas and Hezbollah have attained their status through democratic means. Texas's Village Idiot has made our country a laughingstock by claiming to be bringing democracy to the Middle East, while at the same time stamping it out where it has already arisen naturally.

Both Bush and Ahmadinejad corrupt the word "democracy" by implying that one people can force it onto another. If people choose to live under fascism, theocracy, communism, or any other -ism... they may not in every case be choosing to live under what is technically defined as democracy, but by making the choice freely they are at least following the basic rule of democracy, which is choosing for themselves.

Other nations require an extremely dire justification for not respecting that choice. Needing more petroleum so your people can drive to the beach in delivery trucks disguised as station wagons for Klingons is not a sufficiently dire justification.

Needing more petroleum so your people can drive to the beach in delivery trucks disguised as station wagons for Klingons is not a sufficiently dire justification.

But if the people of the nation want that, then that's the way it should be in a representative democracy, don't you think?

Or do you want to actually take over that system and force your own views and policies onto the people? If so, what do you call that system?

Baron Max

Many commentators have noted that both Hamas and Hezbollah have attained their status through democratic means.

Do you think that candidate's supporters brandishing and shooting AK-47's into the air at the polling places is ....democratic means??? You don't think that might, just might, maybe, be deemed intimidating, to say the least?

Baron Max

****

Do you think that candidates who's campaign contributions come from corrupt corporate offices is democratic means???

Yes, if it's all legal according the rules of campaigning, etc.

Baron Max

****

What is legal is not always in line with what is right and wise for a nation.

And who is to decide that wonderous "right" and "wise"???? Me? You? Or the congressman who have been duly elected by the people?

Baron Max

The world has many problems, we can only peacefully work them out.

What about those poor Libertarians? How come they never get to be on the live TV presidential debates? Because most of them aren't corrupt and not owned by big business? Yes.

No, it's 'cause there's so damned few people who want them in any election, local or national. It's the choice of the people.

The "two party system" just doesn't cut it. Bush would have been absolutely WASTED in the presidential debates had Michael Badnarik been there.

Your opinion is noted. But it also don't make a damned bit of diffeence.

Baron Max

No, it's 'cause there's so damned few people who want them in any election, local or national. It's the choice of the people.

Lies. If they were on TV they would have a chance!

Little may you know, the TV controls many (but not all) of the minds in America.

Lies. If they were on TV they would have a chance!

Well, don't blame that on the government ....tv stations are privately owned! So if the people wanted libertarians on the tv, they'd be there, because the people would demand it.

Little may you know, the TV controls many (but not all) of the minds in America.

I know that perfectly well, but tv ain't the government ....tv stations are privately owned and operated.

Baron Max

****

Funny how the computer, software, and all major aspects of the internet that you are using to bitch about corporations- were built by corporations.

But if the people of the nation want that, then that's the way it should be in a representative democracy, don't you think? Sure, if our people want that, then they have a right to attempt to build a system that provides it. But they do not have the right to install governments in other countries in order to facilitate that.

The Europeans are of course the masters at that, they've been doing it intensively for 500 years and only slightly more subtly for a couple thousand more. Still, ever since the Brits gave up on that Empire thing and the Cold War became the new game, we took over their role in the Mideast. Propping up leaders that did things our way (the Shah, and yes kiddies Saddam was our guy too) or creating entire governments to keep those pesky Russkies out of our Middle East (we created the Taliban to hold off the Soviet-backed Northern Alliance, something our government desperately wants us to forget).
Or do you want to actually take over that system and force your own views and policies onto the people? If so, what do you call that system?No, mi hijo, that is what the Republocrat adminisrations have been doing. The Iranian man in the street did not want the Shah. His government and the whole middle class that supported him were corrupt elitists who spent all their petrodollars on villas in Europe. It has also been argued persuasively that the House of Saud would have fallen a long time ago were it not for all those Christian-nation military installations crowding Mecca, angering a billion otherwise not terribly militant Muslim people.

Even Israel might be a much different country today if its Orthodox wacko minority were not able to give the illusion of governing safely and wisely with The World's Only Superpower using them as a buffer zone against the communists and now the Arabs.

What about those poor Libertarians? How come they never get to be on the live TV presidential debates? Because most of them aren't corrupt and not owned by big business? Yes.Well... We Libertarians aren't exactly housebroken. Most of us are cranky males whom no newscaster in her right mind would interview if she wanted to keep her ratings up. And our leaders are stricken with the naivete of an adolescent crusader. We're not going to support this stupid system by being part of it! We want to change the rules, not use them first to gain some power. And we've even had our corruption scandal. As little money as there is in the Libertarian Party treasury, somebody figured out a way to spend it on six-week paid vacations and other luxuries for the admin staff.

Ron Paul is the only Libertarian with the slightest bit of name recognition and political capital in Washington. He started running as a classic limited-government Republican about ten years ago and he's been doing fine--in Texas!

I think it would help if the US concentrated less on spreading secular democracy than figuring out how we're going to deal with our own problems. If people want secular democracy, let them choose it with minds and hearts rather than a barrel between the eyes.

What you don't seam to understand is that the take over of Iraq and the FORCING of corporate democracy (rule by the RICHEST ) is not democracy at all, it is FASCISM. Iraq is in more chaos than it was before the Fascist American Marines came into play.

http://www.indybay.org/olduploads/4_corp_pigs.jpg

It's not corporate democracy and it's not plutocracy. The plundering and pillaging of American taxpayers and Iraqi and American lives has nothing to do with democracy. It's called opportunity.

My apologies.

We are talking about the Neo-Con agenda. I don't think there is any doubt anymore that it is a complete and total failure. You cannot impose a democracy by the sword, and it may backfire, resulting, like Iraq, in an Islamic Republic.

You cannot impose a democracy by the sword, and it may backfire, ...

And it may not!

Germany after the war? Japan after the war? South Korea after the war? Didn't war bring about democracy in France? Didn't war bring about democracy in early America? Didn't the war bring about democracy in Italy?

Geez, I don't know, Spider ....seems to work sometimes, huh? So perhaps your dire predictions aren't so true afterall, huh?

Baron Max

We didn't go to war to make them democracies, and Hitler was actually elected. France and America were wars from within, which are effective.

We didn't go to war to make them democracies,...

No, but we imposed it as a condition of whipping the shit outta' them!

...and Hitler was actually elected.

I've always agreed with that, but apparently that isn't true. Apparently Hitler and his crew "stole" the election somehow. And I think I learned that here at this very site ....from a seemingly knowledgeable person and link.

Baron Max

Did we impose it? Or did they accept it as a condition of surrender? In the case of Iraq, we are imposing it because they didn't surrender or rather there was no body we left capable of surrender and handing over control.
Besides, spreading democracy is not Bush's concern whatsoever, it's a lie. He just wants conditions for free trade.

No, but we imposed it as a condition of whipping the shit outta' them!



I've always agreed with that, but apparently that isn't true. Apparently Hitler and his crew "stole" the election somehow. And I think I learned that here at this very site ....from a seemingly knowledgeable person and link.

Baron Max

Hi Baron

Hitlers natioonal Socialist party had the biggest vote 9around 33%) i think but not enoguh to form a government, hindenburg (german president) invited him to form a government.. when he got into pwoer then he changed the constitution by way of the enabling act and others as justified by the staged reichstag fire

###
take care zak

Did we impose it? Or did they accept it as a condition of surrender? In the case of Iraq, we are imposing it because they didn't surrender or rather there was no body we left capable of surrender and handing over control.
Besides, spreading democracy is not Bush's concern whatsoever, it's a lie. He just wants conditions for free trade.

Yea...Bush doesn't care about spreading real democracies- or even free trade- his only interest is in making sure his oil buddies get rich by taking over the global oil reserves like in Iraq...right- spidergoat?

What were hoping for is some strategic options to counter the long-range possibility that with Iran hegemony over the entire Middle East it can function as a base to wage terrorist nuclear warfare against the U.S. and the U.K. In light of that scenario maybe trying to keep Islamist fascists from taking over Iraq and Afghanistan isn't such an insane idea.

Except Saddam was never an Islamic fascist, and we attacked Afghanistan and the Taliban for harboring Al Quida. I don't think he wanted to "take over" Iraq's oil, just ensure it's continued supply.

Did we impose it? Or did they accept it as a condition of surrender?

Oh, geez, ...nit-pickin' again, huh? :) what the fuck difference did it make??

In the case of Iraq, we are imposing it because they didn't surrender or rather there was no body we left capable of surrender and handing over control.

Well, isn't it interesting that the greater majority of the Iraqi people voted in a free election just recently?? I'd say that would constitute some tiny bit of confidence in the new Iraqi government, wouldn't you say?

Baron Max

If they accept the conditions of surrender, then they can help build a democracy. If not, they will fight it continually.

Who did they vote for? There was no government at the time.

If they accept the conditions of surrender, then they can help build a democracy. If not, they will fight it continually.

So ....are you calling only the 2,500 or so terrorists and secular killers/murderers "the people" of Iraq?? Do you actually and truly consider that those killers represent all of the people of Iraq. Really? Truly? You actually, truly believe that???

Who did they vote for? There was no government at the time.

Huh? Huh? There was no government in America at one time, either, yet the people voted .....so you don't count that? :)

Baron Max

So ....are you calling only the 2,500 or so terrorists and secular killers/murderers "the people" of Iraq?? Do you actually and truly consider that those killers represent all of the people of Iraq. Really? Truly? You actually, truly believe that???
Strawman, there are more people committing violence in Iraq than those.

Voting isn't everything, Saddam held elections, too.

Strawman, there are more people committing violence in Iraq than those.

Okay, how many??? You tell me, then answer the same question ....do you consider those few radical killers as representing all of the people of Iraq?

By the way, how can you consider my post remarks as a "strawman"????

Baron Max

I do think that the "insurgents" not affiliated with Al Quida are indeed nationalistic Iraqi people. I don't know how many there are.

I do think that the "insurgents" not affiliated with Al Quida are indeed nationalistic Iraqi people.

Huh? New term arises!! What the fuck does "nationalistic" mean in this context??? I.e., does it mean that those few radical, vicious militants represent all of the Iraqi people?

I don't know how many there are.

If you don't know how many there are, then how can you talk about them as if you actually know something about them??? I'm con-fuckin'-fused?

Baron Max

I know they don't represent all the Iraqi people, and I don't think they are all that radical. You might do the same if your country was occupied.

I know they don't represent all the Iraqi people, and I don't think they are all that radical. You might do the same if your country was occupied.

But would it be "right"? Would you support them as you now support the "fighters/killers/bombers" in Iraq? In other words, I can understand a group of "freedom fighters" fighting for what they believe is their nation, their land, their country, but is that what those few fighters are doing??? And are they representing the majority of the people of Iraq?

See? That's where I become very confused ...they're actually killing more of their own people than the "invaders" ...so what the fuck do they want? As I see it, it just seems that they enjoy killing people, sorta' like nightly killing parties to have fun and enjoy the excitement of it all.

And yet you and many others seem to support their rights to fight and kill, but no one seems to be able to tell me ....why? What do they want? And if it's for the Iraqi people, then why are they killing the Iraqi people instead of the "invaders"?

Baron Max

But would it be "right"? Would you support them as you now support the "fighters/killers/bombers" in Iraq? In other words, I can understand a group of "freedom fighters" fighting for what they believe is their nation, their land, their country, but is that what those few fighters are doing??? And are they representing the majority of the people of Iraq?

See? That's where I become very confused ...they're actually killing more of their own people than the "invaders" ...so what the fuck do they want? As I see it, it just seems that they enjoy killing people, sorta' like nightly killing parties to have fun and enjoy the excitement of it all.

And yet you and many others seem to support their rights to fight and kill, but no one seems to be able to tell me ....why? What do they want? And if it's for the Iraqi people, then why are they killing the Iraqi people instead of the "invaders"?

Baron MaxRecall Benedict Arnold and the American Loyalists in the Revolutionary War?? Recall what happened to traitors?

Genji, please explain what your example, has to do with the subject (Benedict Arnold and the American Loyalists in the Revolutionary War?? ) being discussed, after the War of Independence, the Loyalist either moved back to England, Canada, or remained in place and lived under the New Government of America, as for Benedict Arnold, his actions were that of a traitor, he sold his services for money not ideals.

In 1778 Washington appointed Arnold the military commander of Philadelphia after the British evacuated. In Philadelphia patriots accused him of using using public wagons for private profit and for making money for himself after he closed all the shops down in Philadelphia. Patriots also accused him of being to friendly with loyalists. After all, the British had just evacuated Philadelphia, and tensions were high between loyalists and patriots. Arnold then faced a court martial for corruption and resigned his post on March 19, 1779. Soon after resigning, Arnold sold his services to the British.

Recall Benedict Arnold and the American Loyalists in the Revolutionary War?? Recall what happened to traitors?

Please explain what the hell that has to do with what I posted??

Bendict Arnold was a British spy working in the ranks of the American revolutionary forces. But even he didn't kill or blow up innocent women and children. So ..what the fuck does he have to do with what I posted?

Baron Max

But would it be "right"? Would you support them as you now support the "fighters/killers/bombers" in Iraq? In other words, I can understand a group of "freedom fighters" fighting for what they believe is their nation, their land, their country, but is that what those few fighters are doing??? And are they representing the majority of the people of Iraq?

See? That's where I become very confused ...they're actually killing more of their own people than the "invaders" ...so what the fuck do they want? As I see it, it just seems that they enjoy killing people, sorta' like nightly killing parties to have fun and enjoy the excitement of it all.

And yet you and many others seem to support their rights to fight and kill, but no one seems to be able to tell me ....why? What do they want? And if it's for the Iraqi people, then why are they killing the Iraqi people instead of the "invaders"?

Baron Max

These are good questions, but I wish to return to the original one.
An even longer range issue is whether the U.S. and U.K. can rally sufficient ideological support for the Bush mission even from traditionaly western democratic nations dominated by a secular-progressive-humanist political paradigm supporting a pacifist, socialist world view- much less from all the non-aligned countries?
Hell no, since in practice it means pre-emptive war, which is universally condemned by western Democratic nations. Democracy is a worthy goal for all nations, but to impose it with a sword makes it as dangerous as communism was for the US, ie., the "red scare", the "domino theory", ect..

Woaaah..... never your mind

People people... Please, just listen to what I have to say for a moment. If you want to know the details as to who is behind the terrorist attacks go to video.google.com and look up "terror storm"
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm)
This documentary provides a great deal of documentation to prove its many points. I ask you that you go and watch this. Do it for all those who have died for freedom thus far, do it for George Washington who our messed up Federal Government is now calling a "terrorist" of the past. Filthy Lies!!!!! George Washington was a man of the people, a man of Liberty, a man of freedom, a man who stood and still stands for everything True, Right, Peaceful and American!
God save the Constitution! God save America!
"Give me liberty or give me death." -Patrick Henry

:eek: Oh right- Thanks for the revelation manmade- this video was created by a guy with a sterling reputation for credible reportage.
Read all about Alex Jones- producer of Terror Storm video at>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
He's a radio host conspiracy theorist promoting 9/ll and London Subway terrorist attacks as being promulgated by U.S. and U.K. governments to raise fears that could be used to political advantage for solidifying power.

Anyone who believes this utter b.s. needs serious psychiatric intervention.

Ok..... if it matches up with that website, then I am appharently mistaken as to these assumptions. I guess I shouldn't jump to so many conclusions.

You haven't even looked at the EVIDENCE. And yet you would attack this mans reputation.

Attack any one of his POINTS instead of his charactor, and I'll counter your arguement with information and not CHARACTOR ATTACKS.

You don't seam to realize that Alex Jones works with facts, so go watch the video.

You also don't seam to realize how sick our current system has become... it is sad that you are this blind.

:eek: Right- at first I could not see. But my eyes have now been opened by having every one of your facts verified at>

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CDCC04E2-8DE8-4625-B380-DD74EC0F3AC9.htm

Now I know where to go for the truth about America.

Wow.... that freaks me out that these baseless assumptions of mine have matches with aljazeera's.... I take back my theory of complete nonsense. Seriously.

I suppose that way of thinking (aljazeera's) isn't going to help humanity...