Bush!

[RMadd]

Sorry i didn't reply to that... Usually, after reading the first post or 2 after my latest one, i scroll down to the bottom (sometimes & get stopped @ said 1st 2). My answer to that is, no, it's not democracy. Not technically, anyway. I suppose our government tried to support the leader(s) whom they thought would be more receptive to democracy (or at least a freer system) once in power. Guys like Chiang Kai-Shek (Taiwan/the Republic of China), Saddam Hussein (we supported him in Iraq's war w/ Iran, b/c we, slightly ironically, opposed a religious military dictatoriship in the latter state), and... crikey, i had his name just a minute ago, and it just slipped away........... fuck, hopefully it'll come to me.
I'm not quite sure what you mean w/ the governor comment. You talking about Gray Davis & his recall in Cali (which Ahnold won)? To be honest, I don't recall the circumstances surrounding his recall, but I imagine that he was involved in some sort of scandal or other illicit activity (or perhaps the people, Left and Right alike, flat out disapproved of the job he was doing... a pretty odd reaction, electing a Republican in one of the most liberal states in the nation). But if I'm not mistaken, a recall election is well within the bounds of the Cali constitution, and there's nothing in our US constitution forbidding it. So, yes it is democracy, or at least California's brand of it (as espoused in its Constitution)

[RMadd]

the shah of Iran, that's who I was thinking of! but, yeah, he didn't have the best or most democratic track record with his people, but the US supported him b/c he was a secular government.

[RoffeDH]

Rmadd I can see you're very well read on politics... But from what I learned on my history class the US of A got their chanse to test their brand nwe weapons, and I do belive I have many people (here in Sweden) on my side if I should calim this (not just anyones but those who are well readed on the subjekt)...

I was just going to make that point about Saddam Hussein but you got there first... But you missed one fella! Bin Ladin! You have supported him as well, or the CIA or who ever!... Am I wright?

So America have the right to say "this guy right here should rule your country" but not any other country?

What I hated the moste about America is their way of handeling Irak! Going aroung the UN! And then when it's all over and they'd won, not letting people rebuilding the country!

RMadd, what do you say on the point I made about the guy from sweden who used to live in Irak and went down there to see it hasn't changed!?

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RoffeDH)

Rmadd I can see you're very well read on politics... But from what I learned on my history class the US of A got their chanse to test their brand nwe weapons, and I do belive I have many people (here in Sweden) on my side if I should calim this (not just anyones but those who are well readed on the subjekt)...

That may be the case (I've never really studied 'Nam in-depth, so I don't really know one way or the other), but I think you claimed that we went into 'Nam with the sole purpose of testing the new weapons technology. I find that to be utterly false, given what I said above regarding our stance towards communism, etc.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RoffeDH)

I was just going to make that point about Saddam Hussein but you got there first... But you missed one fella! Bin Ladin! You have supported him as well, or the CIA or who ever!... Am I wright?

Yes, you're right. I didn't mention him, however, because he himself was not the leader of the state, as were Chiang, Saddam, or the Shah. But, yeah, the CIA definitely helped him out when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (another example of defending against communism!).

Quote: (Originally Posted by RoffeDH)

So America have the right to say "this guy right here should rule your country" but not any other country?

To be quite honest, I'm not the biggest fan of it, because, as we've seen, it's not just cut and dry, black and white. There's a gajillion variables involved. Plus, alot of what we've tried to do involves cultural imperialism, which isn't the best either.

Quote: (Originally Posted by RoffeDH)

What I hated the moste about America is their way of handeling Irak! Going aroung the UN! And then when it's all over and they'd won, not letting people rebuilding the country!

While it wasn't perhaps the smoothest, Iraq had been in "continued noncompliance" with UN rules made specifically for it (Saddam had kicked out UN inspectors a few times in the late '90s and early '00s, among other things). So while I'm not the biggest fan of us essentially saying "fuck you, France, Germany, and Russia" (because, to be quite blunt, those are about the only countries we really cared about not going in with us), I can see how Bush's hawks were pushing him to go to war (that's another thing I'm skeptical of: I feel President Bush's terms would've gone a whole lot better if he didn't have Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy, and all the other guys that had worked for his dad and/or Reagan 15 years ago who were prolly still a bit miffed about Papa Bush not wanting to go all the way to Baghdad).

Quote: (Originally Posted by RoffeDH)

RMadd, what do you say on the point I made about the guy from sweden who used to live in Irak and went down there to see it hasn't changed!?

Sorry, I didn't catch that point. I'd say, at least right now, that you're prolly fairly accurate with it. I mean, instead of Saddam's Republican Guard & other forces being around all the time, there's coalition forces policing the streets. But they're working on developing a new military & police force that's better equipped to work on its own. Constitution vote is today, and from what I understand, it has a very real chance of passing. It's possible to conclude that the recent escalation of violence may be due to the opponents to a democratic state are getting desperate. Just reading a CNN story, they said reports of violence have been relatively little today. Furthermore, you have to see we're only a couple years removed from actually beginning the rebuilding process. Most Americans might not like to hear this, but it may take 20 years of some sort of military presence (certainly not as large as today, over 100,000) to really get the country back on its feet again. That's why I find people protesting for the immediate extrication of troops from Iraq to be utterly out of their minds: at the risk of sounding like I'm regurgitating President Bush's words, we really do need to stay until we have a pretty good indication that the country won't relapse into violence. And these indicators might be: strong, sustained economic growth; a string of elected top officials whom the people trust and do try to work for the state's common good; and a significant reduction in day-to-day terrorist violence, of course over a long period of time (perhaps up to a year?).

[Ana4Stapp]

Sure it was not democracy...so it means US defends democracy all over the world, but the practice is different...is a fact.What US wanted was to win the Cold War game, no matter how...
But of course latin american politicians were VERY resposible for it as well, cause they didnt anything to avoid it, in true they allowed this, because it take them to the power....and money.
But its not a total surprise you really dont know about this period of US foreign policy ...

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Sorry i didn't reply to that... Usually, after reading the first post or 2 after my latest one, i scroll down to the bottom (sometimes & get stopped @ said 1st 2). My answer to that is, no, it's not democracy. Not technically, anyway. I suppose our government tried to support the leader(s) whom they thought would be more receptive to democracy (or at least a freer system) once in power. Guys like Chiang Kai-Shek (Taiwan/the Republic of China), Saddam Hussein (we supported him in Iraq's war w/ Iran, b/c we, slightly ironically, opposed a religious military dictatoriship in the latter state), and... crikey, i had his name just a minute ago, and it just slipped away........... fuck, hopefully it'll come to me.
I'm not quite sure what you mean w/ the governor comment. You talking about Gray Davis & his recall in Cali (which Ahnold won)? To be honest, I don't recall the circumstances surrounding his recall, but I imagine that he was involved in some sort of scandal or other illicit activity (or perhaps the people, Left and Right alike, flat out disapproved of the job he was doing... a pretty odd reaction, electing a Republican in one of the most liberal states in the nation). But if I'm not mistaken, a recall election is well within the bounds of the Cali constitution, and there's nothing in our US constitution forbidding it. So, yes it is democracy, or at least California's brand of it (as espoused in its Constitution)

Recall is complete legal here in California. Much of the recall election surrounded economic issues and the fiscal irresponsibilities by the folks running the state in Sacramento. There were other issues that Arnold brought up to the people... like driver licenses for illegal aliens. The state is fairly liberal... we have more Democrats working in Sacramento, D.C., and two Democratic Senators (Boxer and Feinstein). However, there are some big Republican counties, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange. But just to sum it up... the recall was more based on where the financial resources for the state were being allocated. High ranking California Republicans did a very good job at convincing a blue state to vote for a moderate Republican.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RoffeDH)

Rmadd I can see you're very well read on politics... But from what I learned on my history class the US of A got their chanse to test their brand nwe weapons, and I do belive I have many people (here in Sweden) on my side if I should calim this (not just anyones but those who are well readed on the subjekt)...

I was just going to make that point about Saddam Hussein but you got there first... But you missed one fella! Bin Ladin! You have supported him as well, or the CIA or who ever!... Am I wright?

So America have the right to say "this guy right here should rule your country" but not any other country?

What I hated the moste about America is their way of handeling Irak! Going aroung the UN! And then when it's all over and they'd won, not letting people rebuilding the country!

RMadd, what do you say on the point I made about the guy from sweden who used to live in Irak and went down there to see it hasn't changed!?

We have never supported Osama Bin Laden. We have supported Saddam Hussein at one time... but never funded Al Qaeda. No one has ever said that no one else has the right to topple dictators... but the Bush administration has a problem with nations like France, Germany, and Russia (who had economic ties to Iraq's oil) with wanting to all of sudden jump right into post Saddam Iraq. I have spoken to numerous soldiers from the U.S. and Britain... as well as Iraqis living in America who all agree that the media is tainting the facts. Al Qaeda letters have been leaked recently with their leaders expressing to Musab Al-Zarqawi (the #1 terrorist in Iraq) that democracy in Iraq will hurt the terror network much like Afghanistan turn to democracy. The war in Iraq is much larger than Saddam Hussein... and it has already influenced other nations to embrace democracy. The majority of Iraqis did not support Saddam Hussein... in fact the Sunnis are a minority group in Iraq. The nation is primarily Shiites, along with some Kurds. Two groups in which Saddam terrorized.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

We have never supported Osama Bin Laden.

actually, Roffe's right... we did support him against the USSR back when they invaded in '79 (I believe) in what became the Soviet "Vietnam."

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

But its not a total surprise you really dont know about this period of US foreign policy ...

what the hell is that supposed to mean?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

actually, Roffe's right... we did support him against the USSR back when they invaded in '79 (I believe) in what became the Soviet "Vietnam."

We did fund the Afghan fighters (which Bin Laden supported), however, the U.S. didn't specifically allocate funds direcatly to Osama Bin Laden. If, Osama did receive American money... it was through illegal activities. His terror networks gained prominence in the late 80s during the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Like I said before, the U.S. backed the Afghan fighters... but it's not like they specifically sent money to fund Osama's terrorist groups. I could be wrong... but there is no evidence supporting the acccusation that U.S. intentionally aided Osama bin Laden.

[RMadd]

We never said the US funded al Qaeda or Osammie's terrorist groups; we merely stated, as you agreed, that we supported Mr. bin Laden. It's a fact. It doesn't mean that the US actually supports terrorism; nor does it mean we aid & abett (sp?) terrorists & terror organizations; it merely means that we were playing a calculated political game during the Cold War, in which we defined anyone and everyone who didn't get along with the Soviets as our friends, regardless of their ultimate motives. So, President Bush might say "you're either with us or you're against us;" back then, it was more of a "if you're against our #1, then we'd love to have ya"

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

what the hell is that supposed to mean?

Because US foreign policy (supporting dictatorships for example), wasnt a thing to be 'proud of' - and of course Washington didnt want american people knew it.

[RMadd]

even if Washington doesn't want us to know about some stuff, there's still a fair amount of information on counterinsurgencies in Latin American from the '50s & '60s thru the '80s. I did a paper my senior year of high school on the one under Reagan in El Salvador. sure, we might not know the entire story, given that those documents from that time period have yet to be declassified (it's something like 40 or 50 years later when official gov docs that are no longer considered crucial to gov't policy are declassified... standard procedure). but at any rate, that means that Europeans or anyone else have the same access to the same information that we do, and vice versa.

[RoffeDH]

No RMadd, if our country have some information that they've got through spionage and that's not classified, we have more information than you, right? You wouldn't belive it if I told you that I have read that your countyr did this and that and that I've read it in a official document from my state, this might just be what have happend with Ana4Stapp, her gov says this, but you don't belive it becouse your country doesn't say anything about it...

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RoffeDH)

No RMadd, if our country have some information that they've got through spionage and that's not classified, we have more information than you, right? You wouldn't belive it if I told you that I have read that your countyr did this and that and that I've read it in a official document from my state, this might just be what have happend with Ana4Stapp, her gov says this, but you don't belive it becouse your country doesn't say anything about it...

Swedish espionage?! Wow... now I've heard everything. I doin't think any American would believe what you're saying because of your blatant Michael Moore worship. We don't believe your accusations because they are OBVIOUSLY false and much of your "intel" is derived from one hilariously ridiculous "mockumentary."