If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Chabon 19 wrote:
....lobert.... wrote: Chabon 19 wrote: lobert, the Singaporean **** for Brains wrote: Chabon 19 wrote: ....lobert.... wrote: snipped and you Chabon will live like a Carbonic dumbass , a saddest tale you have ever known. That is true when one thinks of the idiots like you that share our world! Carbonize dumbass Did you succeed to buy a mirror for your toilette? I guess that explains it! And now - **** for brains - **** off in direction to TEMASEK - good nite arse hole... Carbonized already, too dark to be seen on mirror. Yep we all see that from your dumb answers... Hi Carbonized Crappy ! What dumbest answer is that? |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
John Kerry = American Jew hidding behind the Catholic faith ..
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Pan wrote: Yes, it was a close election, and close enough to be manipulated. No, it wasn't the closest in U.S. history. Ok I'll take your word for it. Anyways, out of curiosity, which presidential race was closer? If a country was communist, it's people suffered [which AFAIK is true] and the U.S. prescribes democracy. The US projects an image of being the greatest advocate of democracy. I don't think the U.S. is the greatest democracy in the world. But not counting all the crap that's gone on for the last 6 years, it's just one model of a republic: A presidential system with a bicameral legislature elected from geographic constituencies in a federation. There are advantages and disadvantages to various models of elective government. Think you misunderstood, I meant greatest advocate of democracy. As to the rest, I cant really comment because I am not familiar with the finer details of a democratic and a republic model. Some countries wallow in democracy and flip flop between democratically elected idiots that dont seem to improve their lives at all. Witness Phillipines and Indonesia. Heck, witness the number of dunderheads who've been president of the US! But still your country is progressing. It has managed to retain it's ranking of superpower for the past few decades. It's still an economic powerhouse. So basically what I'm saying is, a democratic system works in the US because it's citizens are suited to such a system, i.e. a large percentage of voters have the necessary knowledge and education to make a pretty good choice. Eventhough some of the presidents chosen might have turned out to be 'not so good' [depends on who's supporters you ask], they have yet to elect someone who completely detroyed the economy or is a blatant kleptomaniac. And dodgy presidents are usually exposed in no time at all, which means that the safeguards of the democratic model works pretty well in the States. These safeguards don't work in many other countries which leads to my opinion that not every country is suitable for democracy. In the long run, democracy is the best...but timing of when to impose democracy is important. I learned that playing Sid Meier's Civilisation 1,2,3 and 4 hehe Now you compare that to 3rd world countries, those in South America, Africa and those in Phillipines and Indonesia, and you have to wonder whether the people are ready for democracy. Are their voters equipped to make the best choice? Look at the farce in Phillipines, Estrada was voted in by the masses simply because he was a movie star they had grown up with. The voters couldnt even tell the difference between real life and the movies. Whereas if their one of the stronger leaders, i.e. Ramos had clung on to power with undemocratic means, he might have improved the country. Or not. Now moving on from my comments above, I have to ask you, with the benefit of hindsight, if you were Ramos, would you have amended the constitution so that you could stay for 2 or more terms? Whilst in power you could further improve the nation so that its people would be better equipped to select a better leader in future. Or would you do what Ramos did, the honourable thing, and step aside and let it fall into the hands of Estrada whom you knew would then proceed to bankrupt the nation and set it back a few decades? Causing untold misery to millions of filipinos. Ok, that opens up a whole can of worms but, looking back, I just can't help thinking what might have been if ... That's always an interesting mental exercise. I mostly agree with the things you say about democracy, but frustrating and infuriating pretty much sums up what I think about democracy when it comes to SE Asia. That's no different from the experience of the opposition in every country with an elective system of government. Get used to it. Well I don't have much of a choice, do I? You don't, I don't, none of us do. Except for evildoers who would presume to wrest power illegally. People do all sorts of illegal things to get voted in democratically too. Sure. Any system can be manipulated, too. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:56:24 +0800, alex®
wrote: Pan wrote: Yes, it was a close election, and close enough to be manipulated. No, it wasn't the closest in U.S. history. Ok I'll take your word for it. Anyways, out of curiosity, which presidential race was closer? In terms of the electoral college map or popular votes? Anyway, I'd suggest Kennedy-Nixon among others (another manipulated election, that time by the Democrats). Carter-Ford was also very close. If a country was communist, it's people suffered [which AFAIK is true] and the U.S. prescribes democracy. The US projects an image of being the greatest advocate of democracy. I don't think the U.S. is the greatest democracy in the world. But not counting all the crap that's gone on for the last 6 years, it's just one model of a republic: A presidential system with a bicameral legislature elected from geographic constituencies in a federation. There are advantages and disadvantages to various models of elective government. Think you misunderstood, I meant greatest advocate of democracy. Well, not under G.W. Bush. Considering that Bush was selected - um, I mean elected - twice by denying a large number of black voters the right to vote and have their vote count, Bush advocating democracy is rather like the Mafia advocating honest business practices. They'll support those only to the extent that it benefits them. As to the rest, I cant really comment because I am not familiar with the finer details of a democratic and a republic model. Fair enough. Some countries wallow in democracy and flip flop between democratically elected idiots that dont seem to improve their lives at all. Witness Phillipines and Indonesia. Heck, witness the number of dunderheads who've been president of the US! But still your country is progressing. It has managed to retain it's ranking of superpower for the past few decades. It's still an economic powerhouse. That's partly because we've had some excellent chairmen of the Federal Reserve. There are a lot of other reasons for it. But it doesn't retroactively make the dunderheads smarter. So basically what I'm saying is, a democratic system works in the US because it's citizens are suited to such a system, i.e. a large percentage of voters have the necessary knowledge and education to make a pretty good choice. I don't agree. I think that we've so far muddled through despite the low quality of many if not most of our presidents, and that part of the reason for the high popular support for people like Reagan and G.W. Bush is the decline of the educational system. Eventhough some of the presidents chosen might have turned out to be 'not so good' [depends on who's supporters you ask], they have yet to elect someone who completely detroyed the economy or is a blatant kleptomaniac. Hmmmm... My mother got this from the Aliran list. Have a look: See Dick Loot By Dahr Jamail 03/08/06 "t r u t h o u t" -- -- Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) have been making hay in the burning Iraqi sun for years now. It is, of course, no coincidence that the man sitting as vice president played a key role with his influence in obtaining the lion's share of contracts in Iraq for the company he was CEO of prior to his self-appointed position. Yet none of this is news. What is news, however, is that the ties that bind Cheney to Halliburton also link him to groups with even broader interests in the Middle East, which are causing civilians on the ground there, as well as in the US, to pay the price. Cheney had much more at stake than pure altruism in making sure Halliburton/KBR obtained so many no-bid contracts in occupied Iraq. Despite his claims of not having any financial ties to Halliburton, the fact is that in both 2001 and 2002 he earned twice as much from a deferred salary from his "old" company as when he was CEO. But that wasn't the beginning. When Cheney was US Secretary of Defense in the early 1990's under Big Bush, Halliburton was awarded the job of studying, then implementing, the privatization of routine army functions such as cleaning and cooking meals. Following this study, when Cheney was finished with his job at the Pentagon, he scored the job as CEO of Halliburton, which he held until nominating himself for the position of Little Bush's running mate in 2000. Remember, it was Cheney who was given the task of finding a running mate for Bush. After searching far and wide across the US, Cheney ended up generously offering his own services for the job. As if Cheney didn't already have enough conflicts of interest, it is important to note that he assisted in founding the neo-conservative think tank, the "Project for the New American Century (PNAC)," whose goal is to "promote American global leadership," which entails acquiring Iraqi oil. Complimenting this, Cheney was also part of the board of advisers to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) along with John Bolton, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz (all PNAC members) before becoming vice president. JINSA, self-described as a "nonsectarian educational organization," does things like nominate John Bolton for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize and works to "explain the role Israel can ... play in bolstering ... the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel." Their Mission Statement adds, "The inherent instability in the region [Middle East] caused primarily by inter-Arab rivalries and the secular/religious split in many Muslim societies leaves the future of the region in doubt. Israel, with its technological capabilities and shared system of values, has a key role to play as a US ally in the region," which happens to be quite similar to the stated goals of the PNAC for the region, but I digress. By the end of 2002, Cheney owned at least 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options worth over $10 million. And that was before the invasion of Iraq, when the games really began. In March 2003, the month the invasion began, Halliburton was awarded a no-bid contract worth $7 billion from the Pentagon. The blatant awarding of this "reconstruction" contract to Halliburton even led Representative Henry Waxman to comment, "The administration's approach to the reconstruction of Iraq is fundamentally flawed. It's a boondoggle that's enriching private contractors." Of course the invasion and occupation of Iraq aren't only about oil. Remember, it was Cheney himself who, at a VFW convention in August 2002, said "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge." Cheney then, solely in the interests of protecting the American and Iraqi people of course, made sure the US would go into Iraq and take care of that nuclear trouble-maker Saddam Hussein. Just to be safe, Halliburton was paid $40 million for providing housing and transportation for teams searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. For with each contract Halliburton is and was awarded, Cheney's bank account grows. The one place where there were remnants of a nuclear program in Iraq, albeit over 20 years before the 2003 US invasion, was the Osirak Nuclear Research Facility on the outskirts of Baghdad. US-made Israeli warplanes bombed it back on June 7, 1981, and when I visited the place in January 2004, all I found were empty warehouses which the American military wasn't concerned about enough to prevent from being looted. Villagers in nearby al-Tuwetha, ignorant of radioactive waste stored in old drums, looted them in the chaos following the invasion and had been using them as water containers - thus irradiating the entire village. One example of what it looks like on the ground in Iraq when Halliburton fails to fulfill its contractual obligations is the life of Adel Mhomoud. The 44-year-old beekeeper in al-Tuwetha told me, "I have cancer, and I know I'm dying. My white blood cell count is 14,000, and I don't have enough red blood cells. We are all sick; our joints ache, my hips are killing me, and my blood is bad. But nobody will help us here." Certainly not Halliburton. Cheney, who received no less than five military deferments during the Vietnam War despite being a supporter of that war (Sound familiar?), had shamelessly told the veterans at the VFW, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." So that was the door Cheney took to bring Iraq his Halliburton. And of course, once through that door, Halliburton promptly went to work. Aside from the aforementioned awarding of no-bid contracts worth billions of US taxpayer dollars, as early as December 2003, the US Army found out Halliburton was overcharging the government $61 million for fuel transportation and $67 million for food services in Iraq. I remember being in Baghdad when this occurred - seeing the enormously long gas lines at petrol stations whilst knowing Halliburton, not only failing to provide Iraqis with their own petrol, was even charging the US taxpayer three dollars per gallon for fuel that local companies could have imported for under one dollar. But that was barely the beginning. Let's take a brief glance at some of the more recent Halliburton/KBR rogueries: * 27 February 2006 - US Army decides to reimburse KBR nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair equipment in Iraq, despite Pentagon auditors identifying over $250 million in charges as "potentially" excessive. * 17 February 2006 - KBR executive hired to fly cargo into Iraq pleads guilty to inflating invoices by $1.14 million to cover fraudulent "war risk surcharges." * 6 February 2006 - KBR employee in Iraq, speaking on condition of anonymity, says "We pay our locals [in Iraq] $5 to $16 dollars a day and you can see where [KBR] put it down [on the military requisition] as $60 a day." Military requisitions reveal KBR to be paying between $5-$16 per day in wages to third world laborers in Iraq whilst billing US taxpayers between $50-$80 per day. * 30 January 2006 - Bush administration settles dispute between Pentagon and Halliburton by agreeing to pay company $199 million in disputed gasoline charges in Iraq. To date KBR has been awarded nearly $16 billion in total revenue from Iraq contracts. * 23 January 2006 - Halliburton fails to alert American troops and civilian contractors at US base in Ramadi that their water was contaminated. Despite allegations which came from Halliburton's own water quality experts, the company denies there was a contamination problem. * 27 December 2005 - KBR, linked to human trafficking-related concerns via its work in Iraq (such as forced prostitution and labor), Halliburton benefits from Defense Department's refusal to adopt policy barring human trafficking. * 1 December 2005 - UPI reports KBR workers in Iraq ("third country" nationals) found to be paid as little as 50 cents an hour. * 5 November 2005 - UN auditing board finds that US should repay Iraqi government $208 million from Iraqi oil revenue for fraudulent contracting work. Then there is how these "policies" Halliburton is following in Iraq affect US soldiers and contractors, including its own employees. With contracts in Iraq now worth up to $18 billion, there is nothing stopping Halliburton from abusing the lack of oversight and obvious conflict of interest between their free reign and their ties to the vice president. An example of this is Jim Spiri, who was hired by Halliburton/KBR in January 2004 to work as a logistics coordinator. Sent to Camp Anaconda in Balad, Iraq, he worked the flight line handling passenger movements, as Spiri had 20 years of aviation experience. "During my time there, I assisted nightly with medevac [medical evacuations] operations and was highly respected among all military medical folks," he told me this week. "I had a good name throughout the theatre." But problems were immediately apparent to him. "I witnessed much alcohol abuse, in an environment where alcohol is strictly prohibited. I made note of this and reported it to my superiors, who actually were the ones abusing the system. It was obvious that the fox was guarding the hen house, so to speak." He told me his entire flight line operation was "run in a gang-like manner" and "the work was never done in an efficient manner." Instead, according to Spiri, the motto was, "Do as little as possible for as much as you can, for as long as you can." On February 5th of this year, while working the night shift which he had for the last two years, Spiri witnessed something that made the thought of continuing to work for KBR intolerable. After watching a fallen soldier loaded onto a plane without the proper ceremony of honor, Spiri told me he "wrote an account of what I experienced that night." After this, "It was published, and ... all hell broke loose about 36 hours later." Spiri was fired by KBR after writing an article detailing the event and criticizing Halliburton's policies in Iraq. Now he wants to shine light on how KBR operates in Iraq. "What they don't want to let out is the type of workers they have over there, that it's the largest gravy train operation, it's the largest welfare system I've ever seen in my life. It's pathetic," Spiri said in a recent interview while adding that over half the people KBR employed in Iraq were "grossly under-qualified and highly over-paid." His work entailed three people, but by the time he left there were 10 people on his team, most of whom "sat around listening to their iPod's and DVD players." Yet firing an employee for raising awareness about corruption and his questioning of policy is minor compared to the treatment of Iraqis meted out by the company. When I was in Amman last May, I met Ahlam al-Hassan, a young Iraqi woman who had worked for KBR in Diwaniyah. Two gunshots by assailants who attacked her for collaborating with occupation forces left her blind, and her former employers would not return her calls or requests for assistance. For her three months of work for KBR she was paid $475, having taken the job to support her family. "My two bosses at KBR, Mr. Jeff and Mr. Mark, were very good and gentle with me," she explained to me in Jordan, "They told me it wasn't dangerous to work for them." But after spending months in hospitals for what happened to her on her way to work, "After this, they have made no attempts to contact me." Note that on May 31, 2004, an Army Corps of Engineers email revealed that Cheney's office "coordinated" Halliburton's multi-billion dollar Iraq contract. Cheney, like most common criminals, denied having anything to do with the no-bid contract. More recently, on January 26th of this year, Halliburton announced that its 2005 profits were the "Best in our 86-year history," as all six of its divisions posted record results. Halliburton stock price doubled in the last year, and Dick Cheney's tax returns indicate that he earned $194,862 from his Halliburton stock in just the last year. Loot Dick, Loot! Is that clear enough? All of this begs the question: Do you approve of your tax dollars being used in this fashion? If not, then what are you willing to do about it? And during the Reagan administration, we had the savings and loans scandal, which involved a bunch of bankers getting away with the gross theft of people's pension plans to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, all told. Another member of the Bush family, Neil, was involved. And dodgy presidents are usually exposed in no time at all, I wish that were true. It still isn't generally acknowledged that Reagan had alzheimer's while in office. which means that the safeguards of the democratic model works pretty well in the States. I understand what you're doing; you're making a comparison. Yes, things can be much worse; agreed. These safeguards don't work in many other countries which leads to my opinion that not every country is suitable for democracy. I think that's a perverse way of looking at things. The solution is not to maintain dictatorship but to increase the efficacy of those safeguards. If the government is more powerful, that makes publicity about its mistakes and misdeeds _more_ and not _less_ important. In the long run, democracy is the best...but timing of when to impose democracy is important. I learned that playing Sid Meier's Civilisation 1,2,3 and 4 hehe Is that a video game? I think the point is that what's often called "civil society" is needed for a democracy to function well. Now you compare that to 3rd world countries, those in South America, Africa and those in Phillipines and Indonesia, and you have to wonder whether the people are ready for democracy. How do you feel about the voters in Costa Rica and Botswana? Haven't they done a decent job? I think you're being pretty patronizing toward people in those parts of the world. Are their voters equipped to make the best choice? Look at the farce in Phillipines, Estrada was voted in by the masses simply because he was a movie star they had grown up with. Like Reagan. The voters couldnt even tell the difference between real life and the movies. Just like folks in Harlem voted for Reagan even though he cut their food stamps, because it was "Morning in America." Whereas if their one of the stronger leaders, i.e. Ramos had clung on to power with undemocratic means, he might have improved the country. Or not. Now moving on from my comments above, I have to ask you, with the benefit of hindsight, if you were Ramos, would you have amended the constitution so that you could stay for 2 or more terms? He couldn't have done that unilaterally. Ramos, as the first president after the People Power revolution, could not have successfully turned into a dictator. The process was important. Whilst in power you could further improve the nation so that its people would be better equipped to select a better leader in future. Or would you do what Ramos did, the honourable thing, Precisely. and step aside and let it fall into the hands of Estrada whom you knew would then proceed to bankrupt the nation and set it back a few decades? Causing untold misery to millions of filipinos. George Washington refused an offer to become King of America. It's because of the process he agreed to, which allowed freedom of speech to his opponents and under which he retired and presided over a peaceful transfer of power, that the U.S. is what it is today. Sometimes, it's important to look at the long view. The Philippines has been a disaster because of dictatorship and corruption. More dictatorship is highly unlikely to be a solution for the Philippines. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On 10 Mar 2006 05:59:45 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote:
Dave Baker wrote: On 7 Mar 2006 03:30:21 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote: I didn't make up the voting pattern, nor the analysis. You didn't make up the voting pattern but you certainly made up the analysis. Yawn - go & get yourself one of those pretty red & blue maps. Yes the people on the East Coast and some of the West Coast voted more Democratic. Oh, funny - now you want to agree? Given your history I expected .... ..... given your history I had no expectation that you would answer my question. I knew full well you'd fly off on a tangent! :-) Dave |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
"Dave Baker" wrote in message ... On 10 Mar 2006 06:06:01 -0800, "Tchiowa" wrote: I haven't seen any figures to back this up. Have buffalo sales doubled? Toyota King Cab sales doubled? Isaan girls to Patpong halved? Childish stereotypes indicating the snobbery of your elitist view on life. My investments tend more towards the "elitist" side based on your criteria. However, it's a well known fact that your area of expertise extends no further than Isaan girls & water buffalo! :-) Dave *****Ahhhhhhhh Titchy........Someone else has your measure. ;-) |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
alex® wrote: Pan wrote: Yes, it was a close election, and close enough to be manipulated. No, it wasn't the closest in U.S. history. Ok I'll take your word for it. Anyways, out of curiosity, which presidential race was closer? If a country was communist, it's people suffered [which AFAIK is true] and the U.S. prescribes democracy. The US projects an image of being the greatest advocate of democracy. I don't think the U.S. is the greatest democracy in the world. But not counting all the crap that's gone on for the last 6 years, it's just one model of a republic: A presidential system with a bicameral legislature elected from geographic constituencies in a federation. There are advantages and disadvantages to various models of elective government. Think you misunderstood, I meant greatest advocate of democracy. As to the rest, I cant really comment because I am not familiar with the finer details of a democratic and a republic model. Some countries wallow in democracy and flip flop between democratically elected idiots that dont seem to improve their lives at all. Witness Phillipines and Indonesia. Heck, witness the number of dunderheads who've been president of the US! But still your country is progressing. It has managed to retain it's ranking of superpower for the past few decades. It's still an economic powerhouse. So basically what I'm saying is, a democratic system works in the US because it's citizens are suited to such a system, i.e. a large percentage of voters have the necessary knowledge and education to make a pretty good choice. Eventhough some of the presidents chosen might have turned out to be 'not so good' [depends on who's supporters you ask], they have yet to elect someone who completely detroyed the economy or is a blatant kleptomaniac. And dodgy presidents are usually exposed in no time at all, which means that the safeguards of the democratic model works pretty well in the States. These safeguards don't work in many other countries which leads to my opinion that not every country is suitable for democracy. In the long run, democracy is the best...but timing of when to impose democracy is important. I learned that playing Sid Meier's Civilisation 1,2,3 and 4 hehe Now you compare that to 3rd world countries, those in South America, Africa and those in Phillipines and Indonesia, and you have to wonder whether the people are ready for democracy. Are their voters equipped to make the best choice? Look at the farce in Phillipines, Estrada was voted in by the masses simply because he was a movie star they had grown up with. The voters couldnt even tell the difference between real life and the movies. Whereas if their one of the stronger leaders, i.e. Ramos had clung on to power with undemocratic means, he might have improved the country. Or not. Now moving on from my comments above, I have to ask you, with the benefit of hindsight, if you were Ramos, would you have amended the constitution so that you could stay for 2 or more terms? Whilst in power you could further improve the nation so that its people would be better equipped to select a better leader in future. Or would you do what Ramos did, the honourable thing, and step aside and let it fall into the hands of Estrada whom you knew would then proceed to bankrupt the nation and set it back a few decades? Causing untold misery to millions of filipinos. Ok, that opens up a whole can of worms but, looking back, I just can't help thinking what might have been if ... That's always an interesting mental exercise. I mostly agree with the things you say about democracy, but frustrating and infuriating pretty much sums up what I think about democracy when it comes to SE Asia. That's no different from the experience of the opposition in every country with an elective system of government. Get used to it. Well I don't have much of a choice, do I? You don't, I don't, none of us do. Except for evildoers who would presume to wrest power illegally. People do all sorts of illegal things to get voted in democratically too. Sure. Any system can be manipulated, too. Michael Benjamin Franklin (I think it was) once said, in paraphrase, that "Democracy is a suitable form of government only for those who WANT to be ruled by it. For all others, it is wholly inadequate". I think that, in the end, the type of government that the people of any country accept is one that reflects their values. Thus Representative Republicanism reflects the values of freedom and self-determination (America, Great Britain, Australia and the like). Those people who rule others by tyrannical domination will in the end accept that type of rule themselves--witness Congo, Zimbabwe and the like. Despotism--benevolent or otherwise--is successful only in places where patriarchism is inbred into the culture (Saudi Arabia, etc.). And so on. In the end America works because it reflects the values of the American people. To be sure, this is never unanimous nor even in most cases clearly defined. But the process allows for that value to be more or less paramount. It is not a clear guarantee against evil, incompetence or profiteering. But it DOES work--to the extent that no matter how much or how unfairly America is vilified, "the shining city on a hill" is still an irresistable draw to much of the rest of the world. America does not have border guards to keep people in, after all. Liam |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Pan wrote: George Washington refused an offer to become King of America. It's because of the process he agreed to, which allowed freedom of speech to his opponents and under which he retired and presided over a peaceful transfer of power, that the U.S. is what it is today. Sometimes, it's important to look at the long view. The Philippines has been a disaster because of dictatorship and corruption. More dictatorship is highly unlikely to be a solution for the Philippines. You seem to know a lot more about this than me, so I'll rest my case here. It's hard making any arguments when I don't know anything about the scandal affecting Cheney, nor about the situation in Botswana and Costa Rica. I'm not entirely convinced by your points but you've given me some material to chew on. ta-ta for now. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
On 14 Mar 2006 03:37:31 -0800, "Liam" wrote:
Benjamin Franklin (I think it was) once said, in paraphrase, that "Democracy is a suitable form of government only for those who WANT to be ruled by it. For all others, it is wholly inadequate". I think that, in the end, the type of government that the people of any country accept is one that reflects their values. Dictatorship precisely _does not_ take into account the interests or values of the people. The people may or may not support a dictatorial government, but face very strong coercive pressure not to speak out or take other action. Thus Representative Republicanism reflects the values of freedom and self-determination (America, Great Britain, Australia and the like). Those people who rule others by tyrannical domination will in the end accept that type of rule themselves--witness Congo, Zimbabwe and the like. Where do you get off blaming the people of the Congo and Zimbabwe for being misruled? And when you bring in the Congo, are you aware of its history of being raped and murdered by Western imperialists (King Leopold et al.) and the extent to which that devastation made it very difficult for the land to recover? The Congo is one of the most egregious examples of genocide and largescale theft of resources in history. And now, it's somehow the people's fault that gangs have guns and shoot them. As for Zimbabwe, there's plenty of resistance to the depredations of the Mugabe regime, but so far, the coercive power of the state has staved off the opposition through brutality and election-rigging. Despotism--benevolent or otherwise--is successful only in places where patriarchism is inbred into the culture (Saudi Arabia, etc.). And so on. Absolute rule until fairly recently was a universal phenomenon in state societies. In the end America works because it reflects the values of the American people. To be sure, this is never unanimous nor even in most cases clearly defined. But the process allows for that value to be more or less paramount. It is not a clear guarantee against evil, incompetence or profiteering. But it DOES work--to the extent that no matter how much or how unfairly America is vilified, "the shining city on a hill" is still an irresistable draw to much of the rest of the world. America does not have border guards to keep people in, after all. That's mostly because the economy is still much stronger than most other economies. We hear less about immigration to relatively impoverished Costa Rica, though its democracy arguably functions better than America's. I do think that you make some good points, and you write well, but you are overgeneralizing, and apologies in advance if I'm being unfair, but some of your remarks seem to me to smack of the racist concept of "Oriental Despotism" as inherent of the "Orient," which is according to that fabrication ipso facto inherently backward and never subject to attaining the level of "Western Civilization." There is nothing inherently "non-Western" about despotism and nothing inherently "Western" about democracy, though in the latter case, I would readily admit that inspiration for today's concepts of democracy does mostly originate from Athenian democracy, the Roman Republic, and writings by people like Locke -- "Westerners" all. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Military Coup in the offing
Asians are more attuned to being feudalistic which is inimical to democracy. "Pan" wrote in message ... On 14 Mar 2006 03:37:31 -0800, "Liam" wrote: Benjamin Franklin (I think it was) once said, in paraphrase, that "Democracy is a suitable form of government only for those who WANT to be ruled by it. For all others, it is wholly inadequate". I think that, in the end, the type of government that the people of any country accept is one that reflects their values. Dictatorship precisely _does not_ take into account the interests or values of the people. The people may or may not support a dictatorial government, but face very strong coercive pressure not to speak out or take other action. Thus Representative Republicanism reflects the values of freedom and self-determination (America, Great Britain, Australia and the like). Those people who rule others by tyrannical domination will in the end accept that type of rule themselves--witness Congo, Zimbabwe and the like. Where do you get off blaming the people of the Congo and Zimbabwe for being misruled? And when you bring in the Congo, are you aware of its history of being raped and murdered by Western imperialists (King Leopold et al.) and the extent to which that devastation made it very difficult for the land to recover? The Congo is one of the most egregious examples of genocide and largescale theft of resources in history. And now, it's somehow the people's fault that gangs have guns and shoot them. As for Zimbabwe, there's plenty of resistance to the depredations of the Mugabe regime, but so far, the coercive power of the state has staved off the opposition through brutality and election-rigging. Despotism--benevolent or otherwise--is successful only in places where patriarchism is inbred into the culture (Saudi Arabia, etc.). And so on. Absolute rule until fairly recently was a universal phenomenon in state societies. In the end America works because it reflects the values of the American people. To be sure, this is never unanimous nor even in most cases clearly defined. But the process allows for that value to be more or less paramount. It is not a clear guarantee against evil, incompetence or profiteering. But it DOES work--to the extent that no matter how much or how unfairly America is vilified, "the shining city on a hill" is still an irresistable draw to much of the rest of the world. America does not have border guards to keep people in, after all. That's mostly because the economy is still much stronger than most other economies. We hear less about immigration to relatively impoverished Costa Rica, though its democracy arguably functions better than America's. I do think that you make some good points, and you write well, but you are overgeneralizing, and apologies in advance if I'm being unfair, but some of your remarks seem to me to smack of the racist concept of "Oriental Despotism" as inherent of the "Orient," which is according to that fabrication ipso facto inherently backward and never subject to attaining the level of "Western Civilization." There is nothing inherently "non-Western" about despotism and nothing inherently "Western" about democracy, though in the latter case, I would readily admit that inspiration for today's concepts of democracy does mostly originate from Athenian democracy, the Roman Republic, and writings by people like Locke -- "Westerners" all. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's True: Burma's Generals Suddenly Shift Capital | Burma Action Group | Asia | 0 | November 8th, 2005 12:39 AM |
Is an attack on Venezueala Imminent? | destiny | Latin America | 10 | September 30th, 2005 04:58 PM |
AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL SPEAKS - More on BILLY Meier - Henoch Prophecies - UFOs - Space - Universe... | Ed Conrad | Europe | 4 | August 6th, 2005 08:56 PM |
Irish European Attitudes towards George Bush | Gerald Horgan | Europe | 37 | June 23rd, 2004 10:06 PM |
Detained at the whim of the president | Polybus | Air travel | 143 | December 28th, 2003 08:54 PM |