Bush!

[eusebioCBR]

Bravo Chase!!!!!!!!

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

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."

[Ana4Stapp]

I wasnt talking about espionage especifically, I was refering to censorship that governements usually do...you know all of them act in this same way...
lets see...you really KNOW what was happening in the 60', 70's concerning US to the foreign policy in Latin american.

Well Im refering to LA cause someone (I dont remember exactly who-sorry)- said that US spread the democracy all over the world, so I asked how it was really possible IF US governement supported dictartoships in the LA countries against the ellected presidents...and also asked if you american, REALLY know about it?

And seemed you didnt...

And Im NOT intending to provoke you ...in true, its really cause I want to know... just for curiosity...

[RMadd]

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...

well, it seems what we have here is merely a case of everyone believing what their respective governments are telling them... so i suppose we can't really make any judgements now as to who is right and wrong on this matter.
of course, i'm sure that none of this intel has anything to do with attempts to undermine US authority or superiority http://creedfeed.com/community/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

I wasnt talking about espionage especifically, I was refering to censorship that governements usually do...you know all of them act in this same way...
lets see...you really KNOW what was happening in the 60', 70's concerning US to the foreign policy in Latin american.

Well Im refering to LA cause someone (I dont remember exactly who-sorry)- said that US spread the democracy all over the world, so I asked how it was really possible IF US governement supported dictartoships in the LA countries against the ellected presidents...and also asked if you american, REALLY know about it?

And seemed you didnt...

And Im NOT intending to provoke you ...in true, its really cause I want to know... just for curiosity...

I believe you're referring to me, and I feel you misunderstood what I meant. one of our nation's "lines," pretty much ever since the end of WWII, has been that we try to spread democracy throughout the world. Now, during the Cold War, this more or less took the shape of supporting whomever was less overtly communist or the least-involved with the USSR.

Given the history and omnipresence of violence in many of these states (I'm thinking South Asia, Latin America, and Africa) largely stemming from European colonial rule, there were few potential leaders who were true suppporters of democracy and had survived long enough to campaign for it to become the leader of the state. In those places, violence begets violence, and it is seen as a far simpler method of problem-solving than typical democratic means (it's what they knew and had grown accustomed to, so what's the incentive to change?). Furthermore, I know that even today, the majority of citizens in many Latin American states prefer a "cult of personality" (think Stalin, Castro, and the like) over a virtuous or good leader. The idea that "might makes right" discussed in Plato's The Republic mostcertainly plays a role here.

Today, certainly more so than in the past, we are more committed to spreading actual democracy, I would say due largely to the public access to information (through the newsmedia and the like) and the shrinking size of the world, in terms of global politics.

I am aware that our government made some bad decisions in its foreign policy with regard to "Third World" countries in the '60s-'80s. We might not be fully aware of the extent of these decisions right now, but I feel it's unfair to write us off as ignorant (not your words, but my conclusion regarding your "accusations") simply because we aren't experts on an area of American foreign policy. I would guess you don't possess expert knowledge in every topic of British FP (you're British, aren't you?).

[RMadd]

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?

i missed this point in my first reply to this quote...

so, we're going to assume Sweden's espionage documents have been declassified? And Swedes, therefore, have access to these documents. Now, wouldn't American scholars and, indeed, American citizens too have access to this once-privied information? Or is there some goofy rule in Sweden that says declassified info can only be used by Swedes (a rule which would be very very difficult to enforce if, in fact, it did exist).

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote:

I believe you're referring to me, and I feel you misunderstood what I meant. one of our nation's "lines," pretty much ever since the end of WWII, has been that we try to spread democracy throughout the world. Now, during the Cold War, this more or less took the shape of supporting whomever was less overtly communist or the least-involved with the USSR.

Yeah, even though Chase and also uncertiandrumer said the same thing.

Quote:

Given the history and omnipresence of violence in many of these states (I'm thinking South Asia, Latin America, and Africa) largely stemming from European colonial rule, there were few potential leaders who were true suppporters of democracy and had survived long enough to campaign for it to become the leader of the state. In those places, violence begets violence, and it is seen as a far simpler method of problem-solving than typical democratic means (it's what they knew and had grown accustomed to, so what's the incentive to change?). Furthermore, I know that even today, the majority of citizens in many Latin American states prefer a "cult of personality" (think Stalin, Castro, and the like) over a virtuous or good leader. The idea that "might makes right" discussed in Plato's The Republic mostcertainly plays a role here.

I cant agree with you in that, I mean , concerning to the "cult of personality" like you said...I really cant see this way...but maybe you right in some aspect , democracy is still a new issue in many countries in Latin America and the people used to understand politics like a favor the leaders did...it was Populism ( the practice of manipulating people trough the concession of countless 'favors') These favors in true were rights.It was common place in Latin America during 40' and 60'.

Quote:

Today, certainly more so than in the past, we are more committed to spreading actual democracy, I would say due largely to the public access to information (through the newsmedia and the like) and the shrinking size of the world, in terms of global politics.

Trough the use of the war?

Quote:

I am aware that our government made some bad decisions in its foreign policy with regard to "Third World" countries in the '60s-'80s. We might not be fully aware of the extent of these decisions right now, but I feel it's unfair to write us off as ignorant (not your words, but my conclusion regarding your "accusations") simply because we aren't experts on an area of American foreign policy. I would guess you don't possess expert knowledge in every topic of British FP (you're British, aren't you?)

Look, I wasnt accusing the american people, in true i was refering to US leaders, that really made bad decisions like you said . And of course, I wasnt saying you were ignorants (even though, sometimes we use and understand this word in a wrong way), sorry if you took it this way...I really like talking to you about this matter and even disagreeing I respect your opinions as well.

And by the way, disagreeing ,you are wrong...Im not british...Im from South America
and of course I dont have entire knowledge of every topic of my country or other country politics...but I 'think' I have 'some', since Im graduated in History and love politcs.

And last...hope sincerely my post has some meaning, cause its too late and Im sleepy...so, sorry.

[Chase]

You're a history teacher right Anna? I'm majoring in history and minoring in political science... although we disagree in some aspects, you are very intelligent and great to debate with.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

I cant agree with you in that, I mean , concerning to the "cult of personality" like you said...I really cant see this way...but maybe you right in some aspect , democracy is still a new issue in many countries in Latin America and the people used to understand politics like a favor the leaders did...it was Populism ( the practice of manipulating people trough the concession of countless 'favors') These favors in true were rights.It was common place in Latin America during 40' and 60'.

they really do prefer a strong leader over one who might promise actual change but nonetheless be perceived as a weak man. but, like you pointed out, it's a remnant of living for so long under 1 system, and to suddenly change is a sort of culture shock within their own culture...

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Trough the use of the war?

I'm not saying it's right. I'm not saying it's wrong. All's I'm saying is that's just how it is.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

You're a history teacher right Anna? I'm majoring in history and minoring in political science... although we disagree in some aspects, you are very intelligent and great to debate with.

poly sci major, history minor here lol

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

You're a history teacher right Anna? I'm majoring in history and minoring in political science... although we disagree in some aspects, you are very intelligent and great to debate with.

Yes, I am a history teacher... and Id like to study political science maybe someday...
And its the same here, cause even though we have different points of wiews concerning to the politics (especially Bush foreign policy) I really respect your opinions and like very much talking to you.

Thanks for your kind words, Chase... but... I have to admmit this is a total surprise coming from you - I was quite sure you dislike all my posts and PM I sent you...

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

poly sci major, history minor here lol

It really explains the 'hot' discussions we have here... lol but whats the meaning of being majoring and minoring? Whats the difference?

[uncertaindrumer]

Majoring is your number 1, minoring is your number 2, basically.

[RMadd]

yeah.... at least at my school, my major is 45 credit hours... and since each poly sci class is 3 hrs (meaning it meets for 3 hours each week), I have to take at least 15 poly sci classes. my minor is 18 hours, so I've got to take 6 of those over 4 years. the tricky part is also scheduling in all the bullshit general education classes they make us take, although i suppose that's supposed to make us into better-rounded people or something like that.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

yeah.... at least at my school, my major is 45 credit hours... and since each poly sci class is 3 hrs (meaning it meets for 3 hours each week), I have to take at least 15 poly sci classes. my minor is 18 hours, so I've got to take 6 of those over 4 years. the tricky part is also scheduling in all the bullshit general education classes they make us take, although i suppose that's supposed to make us into better-rounded people or something like that.

so...its related to the high school, not to the college? Is it?
Because I m graduate by College and also have one specialization in contemporary history

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Yes, I am a history teacher... and Id like to study political science maybe someday...
And its the same here, cause even though we have different points of wiews concerning to the politics (especially Bush foreign policy) I really respect your opinions and like very much talking to you.

Thanks for your kind words, Chase... but... I have to admmit this is a total surprise coming from you - I was quite sure you dislike all my posts and PM I sent you...

You know, I have never disliked any of your posts... at all. It's just nice having intelligent and stimulating conversations/debates with people who are actually interested in the same fields as I am.