the major Paradigm of US foreign politics is based on promoting US interests abroad. This is often achieved at the cost of supporting flagrant non democratic and human rights violating regimes and governments. As an average citizen of your country, How much would you sacrifice in material wealth to avoid political support of non democratic regimes?..
What? Poor people being tortured and killed in some unknown distant place so I can be comfortable? Sign me up.
this is a message to politicians that justify foreign political actions in support of countries flagrantly violating basic human values, by a mounting level of so called pragmatism or realism ( probably a short sighted one ). if we choose a different approach to foreign politics we are made to believe that we will loose money in the market of political reality, this would reflect on living standards. so how much my friend are you willing to sacrifice in your standard of living as a citizen of the US for the alternative approach??.
You don't do that by not paying taxes and sitting in jail or getting your property confiscated. You elect a government that represents your interests.
a.k.R, the American people don't want to know much about politics. They especially don't really want to know about foreign policy. They are more interested in Britney Spears than they are in our government. To make the US government work the way democratic idealists would like government to work we are going to have to make at minimum a few small changes to the electoral process. Where to start? Destroying the two party system might help. In California we should replace the Republicrat primaries with a nonpartisan instant run-off primary. This in no way solves the problem but it might be a good place to begin. Somehow we need to improve the quality of the political debate, improve the quality of the media reporting, and stop the lobbyists from running the US government. We need to get this done if we want the future children of today's American children and the worlds children to grow up in a better world.
Seeing as I do not agree with democracy, nothing. That being said, I would sacrifice anything to avoid, say, a non-benevolent dictatorship.
That would be very hard to determine since in todays world market everyone buys and sells from everyone else whether or not they are democratic or not.
Why would I want to restrict free trade? The only thing that irks me in regards to supporting non-democratic nations is when we do it and then go around a few years later calling those people bad after they no longer serve a beneficial use for us and then invade them. Use and abuse, but that's the nature of realpolitik to create our enemies so that we have never-ending war. War helps the economy, woohoo! Gag. - N
Dear Norsefire could you clarify your position please. are you an opponent of democracy?. if yes, how would you consider something like benevolent dictatorship NOT as a clear contradiction, unless the term benevolence for you is nothing more than the efficient way we treat our animal stock?.
Dear Nirakar i agree with you, democracy is a continuous struggle. that most people are disenchanted, or simply fail to realize the importance of political activism is a growing problem in the democratic regimes. i presented this pol to what I consider to be an intellectual elite, if you allow me the terminology.. I think such groups, interested and well informed can have a substantial influence on the popula at large; if they can usher a basic understanding regarding important issues..and this has been indeed achieved for many times in history.. we are now at a critical transition state, politically and socially.. new thinking and extra efforts are pivotal. it is a state were most politicians fail to be representative of the interests of their electorate, because this interest is in a transition too. we need to remind old politicians that a new era has started. new rules are being formed, and new priorities should at least complement the given changes.
Let me make a long story short. Might=Right! There is no right or wrong, lies or truth when it comes to international affairs. As Dragon once said, the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, is that the terrorist lacks the means to enforce his version of the truth, which makes him a terrorist. I know I butcherd that quote Dragon but you have so many damn posts I couldn't find the exact referencePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the truth is the truth. if i enforce my version of the truth on my neighbor that makes me a freedom fighter?
Example, during the Revolutionary War, the colonists were viewed as terrorist by King George III, but after the Britts lost, History has designated the red-coats as the oppressive imperialistic terrorists. If we lost the Revolutionary War, then Washington would of been charged for treason, hanged, and history would of designated him as a terrorist.
right, so what i said was that if i want to ENFORCE my version of the truth (regardless of what it is) on my neighbor and i have the means to do so then i would be a freedom fighter. According to the quote it does not matter what the version of the truth is just as long as i have the means to enforce it. So to you there is no right or wrong just brute force. Have i misunderstood you? Who would have designated him a terrorist? I dont think that is an accurate statement either.
Not at all, lets take the KKK for example. During the time when Birth of Nation was released, the KKK were viewed as freedom fighters. But once their influence receeded, history has designated them as terrorists. The ones who controlled the power, the courts, the people. It is, I think you're just being difficult as usualPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The KKK were not or could not be considered freedom fighters, your just proving my point. The most important part you are leaving out 'Birth of a Nation' was from the early 20's, the KKK could have changed or people just didnt know enough about them when the film was made. Why is there such a grey area? I'm not being difficult but a quote like that is just too wrong to let slip by. I mean was Charles Manson a freedom fighter until things stopped going his way?
I guess you have a different definition of what a freedom fighter is. Google "KKK-Freedom Fighters" and you'll see that many others have had this debate before me and you. What you'll find is most people agree with my point. The people were the KKK, the KKK inflatrated every sector of goverment on the local level at it's apex. Charles Manson never held the keys of power, like a King, Dictator, or President did. So your comparssion isn't valid.
All of what you want is impossible in this form of government. First, the media makes every candidate that speaks his or her mind look like a wingnut, so they can't win unless they straddle the middle of the road. And because the media is privately-owned, they will always support the candidate that they want to support, while mudslinging the rest of them. There is no way to make the media fair and balanced, no matter what Fox News claims. The best we can hope is that after one President is a total disaster, the American people vote for a good one in the following election. That's the best we can do.
