Hey when you have the best system in the world that allows the most freedoms, you need to spread that to the rest of the world so that their people can enjoy the same level of freedom of thought and religious choice. DD
Wait. We're going to support spreading freedom to the world by complaining when people elect people we don't like? "Looking out for our good" and "spreading freedom across the globe" are not synonymous goals. At all.
It sure is. We have a system we want them to emulate - it is one that allows the greatest freedom for it's people and allows for all kinds of religions where even the smallest ones have the same rights and protections. And, if we have to go a strange route to help it spread to the rest of the world, so what....got to look out for the greater good. DD
No. Just no. This nationalistic bull**** needs to die out. We can all admit here that we want the US to follow what is in its best interests since we are all part of it, but don't try to justify it like this.
Note your words carefully. You never say that if other countries implement our system that it will create the greatest benefit for America. You say that it will create the greatest benefit for THEIR people and THEIR religions. And it does not follow that a system which benefits the world's peoples and religions is a system which benefits the United States. It is certainly possible, but it is not automatic. The greatest hypothetical geopolitical threat which the United States could ever face would be if all of Eurasia united into a single state, as Kissinger noted. And it wouldn't matter in the slightest if this state was a dictatorship or a democracy, or even if it promised benevolent neutrality with the United States. It would still be the greatest threat to our country.
Going to quibble over terminology. DD's statements are NOT nationalistic. They're democratic, combined no small touch of Wilsonian ( and please note the small d, I'm not talking about the political party), because he's emphasizing democracy over American power.
Similar to what is done in Turkey. There the elections are democratic, not rigged; however, when someone in power becomes a little too religous/fanatic the military swoops in to kick them out. A similar Turkey model should be standard for countries in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, that is a thing of the past. in Turkey, a populist Islamist has managed to cut the military's power to do that, and is trying to establish more power for Islamists.
The old Islamic Bully Pulpit - we see it time and time again, give it an inch and they want the whole yard. DD
Exactly, I am saying the spread of the ideology is the most important thing. And if we have to travel a seratipitous(SP?) route to get there, so be it. DD
Really incredible. "It's either my world or the end of the world", is this what you support? ^^^ This is how you sound to everyone else in the world. Just making sure you know. The paragraph is completely made-up for illustration. Even if you use pretty words. Think about what it means to 1) pursue (how? why is pursuit necessary?) 2) self interest (who is "self"? who owned those interests before you?) 3) abroad (why abroad interests? why is abroad preferred over home?) Most importantly, how many lives will it cost, who's money will be used, and who will reap the benefits? Wake up. It is idiotic to support pursuit of self interest when you get *****all back for it. It costs your money, it costs your freedoms, it costs yours and other lives, and the benfits/profits always ends up in the same bucket labelled "potential campaign donations". You don't own that bucket. Over and over again. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19670223.htm
The US isn't a system anyone wants to emulate. It punishes both poverty and small businesses and middle class investors at the expense of wealthy banks and corporations. You can't honestly expect every nation in the world to adopt a system of government just like the US...especially since no one has. Israel, Japan, the UK, France, Germany...very different political systems and very different sets of values those societies value most and all are "democracies". As free as the US is, there are plenty of freedoms Americans don't have. Americans aren't allowed to gamble online. Americans aren't allowed to buy cuban rum. Americans (unlike most people on Earth) still have to report their incomes to their home country no matter where they live or long they've lived there. Americans can't even drink in a public area most places other than Vegas or New Orleans. This is off the top of my head... I'm helping a friend build a trading platform in the UK. I can't legally create an account on it...because it's not licensed in the US. Americans aren't technically allowed to use a trading platform licensed abroad. Trade Licensing in the US is $30M vs. $1M in the UK. Which sounds friendlier to someone trying to get funding for a small startup? I do media consulting for a lot of companies in Israel, and many are involved in online casinos and trading. Most of them don't even bother with trying to get US customers now because of the draconian laws and the willingness of the long arm of US law to go after them for trying. But I can still get customers from places like Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and Egypt, where the laws aren't as punitive, you know, to free trade Americans are free to vote whatever government they want into power. Not so long ago, our ancestors made it illegal to buy alcohol. Americans hardly have a monopoly on good governance, but they are free to choose their own destiny. If Egyptians want to vote themselves a religious party majority, it's their business. Religious parties in places like Egypt are seen as a welcome change from autocratic corrupt elites. I think it's wrong, since I'm a western-educated secularist, but if I can't force my values on American social conservatives, and respect their opinions, their arguments, and their votes, how can I justify doing that to starving masses of oppressed Arabs a few hours away from where I happen to live? Who are we to tell them when it's ok to throw out a government, and which kind they are allowed to elect to replace it? It's also hypocritical to bash the MB when their mirror image in Israel (Shas) holds major cabinet positions and negotiates with US diplomats on matters of state and security. You have to deal with who's in charge, and diplomacy requires that. Having diplomatic relations with the world's governments doesn't mean you to love them. Jesus man, we still maintain relations with Robert Mugabe and it isn't because he has oil we need or a a government like ours. It's just the way it is. Egypt was great under Mubarak for me as an American living in Israel that frequently vacationed in Sinnai. Now? Not so safe in the new anarchy...but I'd give up my vacation spot in good conscience if it means the people there are free to pursue their own lives in peace. The world doesn't belong to me and I can't dictate how people want to live.
Is DaDakota a fascist? He seems to think that because he is Agnostic he is immune to ideological criticism. You can read about it in detail and decide for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
DD you are being ironic right? You know that you sound like all the religious people you dislike so much? You know better what is good for other people than they do. I think it is clear that the US is hypocritical, they want a democracy but only if the people in those countries elect people they like. There really is no discussion possible.
