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.

Don't understand the question, do you mean that people should refuse to pay their taxes?

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.

How much would you sacrifice in material wealth to avoid political support of non democratic regimes?..

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

Seeing as I do not agree with democracy, nothing. That being said, I would sacrifice anything to avoid, say, a non-benevolent dictatorship.
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?.

a.k.R, the American people don't want to 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.

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 reference:)

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?.

Benevolent dictatorship is better than democracy; democracy is mob rule.

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 reference:)

the truth is the truth. if i enforce my version of the truth on my neighbor that makes me a freedom fighter?

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.

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.

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?

If we lost the Revolutionary War, then Washington would of been charged for treason, hanged, and history would of designated him as a terrorist.

Who would have designated him a terrorist? I dont think that is an accurate statement either.

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?

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.




Who would have designated him a terrorist?

The ones who controlled the power, the courts, the people.


I dont think that is an accurate statement either.

It is, I think you're just being difficult as usual:)

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 usual:)

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?

The KKK were not or could not be considered freedom fighters, your just proving my point.

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 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.

The people were the KKK, the KKK inflatrated every sector of goverment on the local level at it's apex.

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?

Charles Manson never held the keys of power, like a King, Dictator, or President did. So your comparssion isn't valid.

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.

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.

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.

I don't recommend giving up. Abolition of slavery , the female vote, and the civil rights movement each took decades of people working towards progress while the mainstream of their day resisted change.

In California and many other states ordinary people can use the initiative and referendum process to change laws. Using that process to remove the destroy the two party system on the state level would put the people in a slightly stronger position to push for other reforms.

The rise of the internet helps. Any attempt by the corporations or government to gain control over the internet content needs to be resisted.

I would ban political advertising on FCC regulated airways and phone lines if I could. Push the candidates towards advertising in text if possible because in print it looks strange when you don't say anything substantive.

Ideally every TV and radio station would be a single locally owned entity rather than part of a chain. Rather than protesting the wars, maybe we should protest the media that sells the wars. We need a long term assault on the media. When the right attacked the media for having liberal bias the media swung further right; time for the left to attack the media. Both the left and the socially conservative right are opposed to further media consolidation.

The left and right and center of the America voters already all agree that the political /media system we have in the USA is a bad system that leads to bad governance. The problem is not getting the public to support political and media reform, the problem is getting the public to prioritize political/media reform over other issues. This won't be easy with the media working to preserve the present system.

A great depression is likely to happen sometime in the next twenty years. Anger against the present system will intensify during the depression. That will be the time when larger reforms are possible if the political reform movement can be a little more vibrant and well organized at the onset of the depression than they are now.

I don't recommend giving up. Abolition of slavery , the female vote, and the civil rights movement each took decades of people working towards progress while the mainstream of their day resisted change.

Oh, trust me, I haven't. It just gets bleak sometimes, ya know? But thanks for the encouragement.

I would ban political advertising on FCC regulated airways and phone lines if I could. Push the candidates towards advertising in text if possible because in print it looks strange when you don't say anything substantive.

Ideally every TV and radio station would be a single locally owned entity rather than part of a chain. Rather than protesting the wars, maybe we should protest the media that sells the wars. We need a long term assault on the media. When the right attacked the media for having liberal bias the media swung further right; time for the left to attack the media. Both the left and the socially conservative right are opposed to further media consolidation.

This utopia would be excellent. The problem is finding the happy medium between that place and where we are now. Actually, the problem is changing the current system at all. How do you propose we do all this? Remember, it took politicians and other media groups to sway mainstream media further to the right, not the average citizen, or even the extremely loud citizen.

The left and right and center of the America voters already all agree that the political /media system we have in the USA is a bad system that leads to bad governance. The problem is not getting the public to support political and media reform, the problem is getting the public to prioritize political/media reform over other issues. This won't be easy with the media working to preserve the present system.

Again, there is problem with that train of thought. While both sides have their complaints about the media, those complaints lie in the slant, rather than the structure. And that can be changed. Remember also, even if all parties can see the inherent problems with the media in its current form, it's working for the two main parties, which means that any attempt to change it will be met with either a brick wall of Democrats and Republicans, or only by Democrats, with Republicans looking to shape the new media in their own image (See: Fox News).

Don't get me wrong, I like what you're saying. But I don't see it as realistic. Politicians make the rules, and they are very short-sighted. If they can get ahead right now, they damn whatever comes after them for the sake of immediate returns.

A great depression is likely to happen sometime in the next twenty years. Anger against the present system will intensify during the depression. That will be the time when larger reforms are possible if the political reform movement can be a little more vibrant and well organized at the onset of the depression than they are now.

Well, I'll believe a Great Depression when I see it. Otherwise, I'm not sold. But even so, I think our current situation is bad enough to warrant at lest some change. Even if it means having a person in the white house that can earn the respect of the world, then that's a good enough start for me. Besides, I can think of about a million other things that require my urgent attention.

Seriously, the only real way to bring about change is to take it to the streets. Get numbers, start a riot. That's the only way.

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.

I think it was a valid comparison.

AFA the KKK by your own example: 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.

if the KKK was successful in their vision then they would have been freedom fighters. Perhaps now you see why that statement is not accurate...AT ALLLLL.

I think it was a valid comparison.

AFA the KKK by your own example:

if the KKK was successful in their vision then they would have been freedom fighters. Perhaps now you see why that statement is not accurate...AT ALLLLL.

If the Klan wasn't considered Freedom fighters can you please explain why 20% of the White Male population were active members at the time?

So back to my original point. When the Klan had power, they were considered Freedom fighters not terrorists like they are today.

The KKK controlled Southern legislatures and the governments of Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon. In Indiana, Republican Klansman Edward Jackson was elected governor in 1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Members

]There is evidence in certain states, such as Alabama, the KKK showed a genuine desire for political and social reform.[55] The state's Klansmen were among the foremost advocates of better public schools, effective prohibition enforcement, expanded road construction, and other "progressive" political measures. In many ways these reforms benefited lower class white people[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Members

Another example of the Klan fighting for basic freedoms for lower class whites. Now they're mocked, ridiculed, and destested, now that they're devoid of any significant influence in the mainstream. That's why the infamous member Byron Beckwith was sucsessfully prosecuted decades after he committed acts of terrorism against the civil rights workers in Mississippi. At the time, the people of mississippi considered Beckwith a freedom fighter, that's why he was able to escape justice in both trials that were held. Fast forward to 1994, the good people of Mississippi now see the Klan for who they really are, terrorists, which led to the conviction of Mr Beckwith.

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.

I think your problem is rooted in the obscurity of the term terrorist. the obscurity is offcourse intentional, for very pragmatic reason. there is no hope for determining who is a terrorist unless you provide a clear definition.

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 reference:)

notwithstanding the terminology, you surely agree that might, as such, is something very complex; that also includes endurance, persistence, logic, reasoning, the right priorities, economic distribution of resources, cooperative handling of challenges, wisdom, ethics......
in fact we end up discovering that right is interwoven with might !.

we can not substitute the notion of right by the notion of might, unless we understand the complex structure of might ..

Benevolent dictatorship is better than democracy; democracy is mob rule.
first of all, be sure that modern democracies which are complex institutionalized systems of governing societies, representing a state of law and order rooted in public support and human values, have nothing to do with mob rule.. I guess you either lived in one or visited a modern democracy.. did you find any mob ruling?!.

some democracies appear to be too disorderly compared to totalitarian rule .. however a certain level of freedom, even the ability to actually do mistakes, is an inherent factor of a system, be it an individual or a society, that is learning = maturing..

things are not so complex if you project your vision in a personal scale. would you really choose a family structure modeled after a totalitarian system, or after a democratic system.. unless you choose the position of a dictator for your self, are you willing to negate your self your reasoning, your most precious human qualities?.

beside, if you wait for a good dictator, you will do so for a long time, and it is quite risky, and finally how could you judge whether it is truly benevolent; are you going to be able to do so in such a regime???.

a fundamental truth about human nature is that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, through a system of checks and balances, we as a society invented a prescription to this human weakness.

notwithstanding the terminology, you surely agree that might, as such, is something very complex; that also includes endurance, persistence, logic, reasoning, the right priorities, economic distribution of resources, cooperative handling of challenges, wisdom, ethics......
in fact we end up discovering that right is interwoven with might !.

we can not substitute the notion of right by the notion of might, unless we understand the complex structure of might ..

So, are you saying that might is a byproduct of being right? To a small degree yes (If that's what you were saying). However, lets take the ancient romans for exaple, who enforced roman catholicisim by the sword, as the did the muslims. So were the romans right for doing what they did because they could? If I misread your post please correct me:)

So, are you saying that might is a byproduct of being right? To a small degree yes (If that's what you were saying). However, lets take the ancient romans for exaple, who enforced roman catholicisim by the sword, as the did the muslims. So were the romans right for doing what they did because they could? If I misread your post please correct me:)

Dear Ganymede, I would rather say that being right is a component of strength; because the term right incorporates some internalized historic human experience (coded in symbols and what ever..).

many new ideas spread at the start using variable degrees of violence. this restructuring was common because most people adhered to their ancient believes. almost all ancient societies were extremely conservative. change was brought about by replacing a sizable portion of society by force. some times destroying it completely.
however if the new idea or set of governing systems fail to provide for the essentials of organizing a sizable military armee, which requires a high degree in wise management, and if, most importantly, it fails to establish the complex prerequisite of a strong society, it will disappear quickly, as did many religious thoughts, sects, and communities; history choose most to ignore.

remember that the romans are also famous for their Laws. Muslims have adapted an almost independent juridical system that could question the decisions of a king.

there is also a bias in history for documenting wars and violence; for very practical political reasons. so beware of that.

any way, the term right is not referring to absolute rights.. the shape and content of what is right is mostly evolving.. although the believe that you can establish a complex, flourishing society by brute force has at least since the ruler of Mesopotamian HAMOURABI been rightfully questioned.

believing in democracy while investing in anti-democratic regimes, is it worthwhile given future possibilities?, is it manageable in an interconnected future?.. can current democracies thrive without an enemy?.