USA presidential elections

[sz_matyas]

Never should involve ourselves in other peoples affairs and no such thing as good imperialism. Those are some pretty broad statements coming from a country that has greatly benefited from both imperialism and US meddling, but luckily we do have some history with replacing duly elected governments in places like Germany (had about as much right and maybe more than the government in Chile). I'm also sure Eastern Europe is so appalled by our meddling that they became some of our biggest allies out of spite. Japan was another classic example of the "American Imperialism" you are describing and that turned out all right. In more ancient times you can find even better examples of imperialism being a positive. The goal isn't to make the people like you, the goal is to improve the people. As long as the corporations follow free market principles I have no problem with them profiting, that is how wealth is generated, when both people think they win.

Don't know how many times I have to tell you Democracy isn't/shouldn't be the goal in all instances. Human rights is a valid goal, democracy isn't a human right though (free markets are a good goal, but never a reason to invade though and don't rant about the US not having a free market, part of my job is helping design pharmaceutical plants and understand there are major flaws). The problem isn't that the US is losing democracy, so much as it is gaining more than it can handle. Arguments about the press being free don't seem to hold a terrible amount of water, biased yes, lazy in fact checking/reporting definitely, just plain wrong too often absolutely, but it has shown itself free to make these mistakes. The biggest problem with the press is that they tied themselves to news services like Reuters allowing one person to get themselves into virtually every major outlet and thanks to the laziness of everyone involved gross errors and misrepresentations often don't get checked and corrected ("costs too much money to check everything and we're losing money as it is").

[Robi D]

quote:Originally posted by killercane


What about Panama and to a lesser extent Nicaragua? Why do you say the every day Iraqi hates Americans or resents them? Wouldnt there be nonstop riots and even more deaths if the common man didnt want the US there?

Don't know much about Panama. Noriega was a CIA man when he took power. Don't know the reason for the fall out but he was jailed for drug trafficing or something like that. Nicaragua was a case of the US backing an oppressive regieme, which pissed the people off so they turned to the communists which pissed the US off, so they funded the Contras another less than pleasent organisation and you got the whole Iran-Contra scandal.

Why is everyone not rioting in Iraq. Thats more of a question of human nature. Why didn't they all riot during Saddams excesses or why didn't the East Germans rise as one against their regieme. The survive instict kicks in and you try to make the best of a bad situation, but just because someone isn't launching a RPG at you doesn't mean they are happy your there.

I'll ask you a question, how would you feel if you had a foreign force policing your neighbourhood?

[Robi D]

quote:Originally posted by sz_matyas

Never should involve ourselves in other peoples affairs and no such thing as good imperialism.

I didn't say you shouldn't be involved, just that the involvement shouldn't include things like bombing and occupation. And there is no such thing as good imperialism.

quote:Those are some pretty broad statements coming from a country that has greatly benefited from both imperialism and US meddling,

How has Australia benefitted exactly.

quote:I'm also sure Eastern Europe is so appalled by our meddling that they became some of our biggest allies out of spite.

Or maybe they don't want to be bombed and occupied

quote:Japan was another classic example of the "American Imperialism" you are describing and that turned out all right.

No, you actually helped and then let them do there own thing. Thats not imperialism

quote:In more ancient times you can find even better examples of imperialism being a positive.

Tell that to the people that were being opperessed. There is a reason every empire there was has fallen.

quote:The goal isn't to make the people like you, the goal is to improve the people.

Improve the people sounds like a euphemism for making the people think what you want them to think.

quote:As long as the corporations follow free market principles I have no problem with them profiting, that is how wealth is generated, when both people think they win.

That true, when it actually happens

quoteon't know how many times I have to tell you Democracy isn't/shouldn't be the goal in all instances. Human rights is a valid goal, democracy isn't a human right though (free markets are a good goal, but never a reason to invade though

Its your politicans that talk about democracy as the goal. As for Human rights, well thats one of those reasons with a lot of scope for fudging. Can't see how you can justify it when you support people like Musharaf in Pakistan for one, who don't respect human rights

quote:don't rant about the US not having a free market, part of my job is helping design pharmaceutical plants and understand there are major flaws).

I never did, so i don't know what your on about there

quote:The problem isn't that the US is losing democracy, so much as it is gaining more than it can handle.

An interesting take, do explain

quote:Arguments about the press being free don't seem to hold a terrible amount of water, biased yes, lazy in fact checking/reporting definitely, just plain wrong too often absolutely, but it has shown itself free to make these mistakes. The biggest problem with the press is that they tied themselves to news services like Reuters allowing one person to get themselves into virtually every major outlet and thanks to the laziness of everyone involved gross errors and misrepresentations often don't get checked and corrected ("costs too much money to check everything and we're losing money as it is").

Well its funny that these mistakes and laziness result in supporting/ confirming to the government view. Maybe the Soviet press was free but just full of lazy journalist.

[Shabbaman]

quote:Originally posted by Robi D
Well its funny that these mistakes and laziness result in supporting/ confirming to the government view. Maybe the Soviet press was free but just full of lazy journalist.

[sz_matyas]

Suppose I could take this point by point as I really have nothing better to do with my time right now.

quote:
I didn't say you shouldn't be involved, just that the involvement shouldn't include things like bombing and occupation. And there is no such thing as good imperialism.

This is the way to get results fast. Diplomacy UN style has proven a general failure. Economic sanctions take time and often don't work when the rest of the world doesn't participate. Even when they do, it doesn't always work well (see N. Korea for example where the situation is worse than if we had invaded with intent to win a while ago)

quote:
quote:Those are some pretty broad statements coming from a country that has greatly benefited from both imperialism and US meddling,


How has Australia benefitted exactly.

Considering that Australia was started by British Imperialism and gained a good infrastructure network as well as a concept of British human rights principles and free market ideas I would consider you gaining from imperialism (same could be said for the US, though it wasn't just the British with us). As far as US meddling, my argument is weak at best, I was confusing a couple things in my mind and best I can come up with now is the US deciding that it wanted to defeat Japan rather than simply protect itself in WWII (I know it's weak).

quote:
quote:I'm also sure Eastern Europe is so appalled by our meddling that they became some of our biggest allies out of spite.


Or maybe they don't want to be bombed and occupied

I don't remember any bombing/invasion scenarios involving eastern europe in the past 10 yrs. Despite Russia almost openly provoking people, we haven't talked about invading them, so I think eastern bloc countries generally are fans of the US despite our meddling there.

quote:
quote:Japan was another classic example of the "American Imperialism" you are describing and that turned out all right.


No, you actually helped and then let them do there own thing. Thats not imperialism

Sure didn't start that way. Looked a lot like what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan when we invaded and started dictating terms of government while keeping a massive military presence. You can't have it both ways, this was imperialism by the standard you set.

quote:
quote:In more ancient times you can find even better examples of imperialism being a positive.


Tell that to the people that were being opperessed. There is a reason every empire there was has fallen.

Often they fall through decadence or foreign invasion, not just through uprisings of the people or dissatisfaction of the oppressed. Even if it is an uprising of "the people" that doesn't necessarily help them, just ask the people of Cuba or sub-Saharan Africa if everything is fixed now that the imperialistic overlords are gone.

quote:

quote:The goal isn't to make the people like you, the goal is to improve the people.


Improve the people sounds like a euphemism for making the people think what you want them to think.

Maybe I should have said it straight so that you wouldn't have to wonder if it was a euphemism. Propaganda and indoctrination are how knowledge is passed and how schools work. Someone is telling everyone how to think, the question is are they doing it primarily for the student or student.

quote:
That true, when it actually happens

We actually agree, wow.

quote:
Its your politicans that talk about democracy as the goal. As for Human rights, well thats one of those reasons with a lot of scope for fudging. Can't see how you can justify it when you support people like Musharaf in Pakistan for one, who don't respect human rights

Our politicians are generally short-sighted and stupid. Human rights issues is why the church developed the just war doctrine, it isn't perfect and if people don't follow it, it's worthless. The Musharaf situation in Pakistan is a tricky one to say the least. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and if we simply left things be at the moment odds are some would end up in the hands of Waziristan which has openly stated they would be willing to use them against the West. The US doesn't have the political and military will to invade and hold things in check while we still have open issues in Iraq and Afghanistan with Iran flexing its muscle. This would be a perfect instance for the rest of the world to step up (especially as the assassination of Bhutto gave them a great opportunity), sadly the rest of the world has generally shown its colors.

quote:
I never did, so i don't know what your on about there

I know you didn't, just wanted to cut off the rant before it started.

quote:
quote:The problem isn't that the US is losing democracy, so much as it is gaining more than it can handle.


An interesting take, do explain

One of the keys to both democracy and the free market is that people making decisions (who to vote for/whether to sell/how much to pay/etc.) are well informed. Obviously people don't have the time or ability (let alone the will) to be informed on everything. With minor things, such as which store to shop at, we can use heuristics to cope with our lack of information and a marginally bad decision doesn't hurt much (maybe we spent an extra 10%, but that's just $5-$10). Much of the point of advertising is to misinform consumers regarding the relative value of your product. With democracy you are asking people with no personal knowledge of the candidates to sift through intentionally deceptive ads, commentary and votes on bills that contained tens to hundreds of provisions (which usually include things for both sides, allowing any vote to be cherry picked as either pro or con for both sides) to find the truly best solution. Only here a marginally bad solution costs billions of dollars and could plunge the world into chaos. Using chain representation (i.e. I vote for state legislator who votes for senator who votes on judges) means that knowledge of the person and campaigning can be more effective leading to better choices. It also would remove chunks of the budget as pork projects no longer carry their power (they would still be around, spoils systems always come back, just the incentive for $100M bridges to nowhere would disappear from the senate with the old way of electing them).

quote:
Well its funny that these mistakes and laziness result in supporting/ confirming to the government view. Maybe the Soviet press was free but just full of lazy journalist.

The government learned that propaganda works and if they helped the major news services, they would get favorable coverage and it would generally drown out opposing voices. Since they are willing to get the stories, the press is willing to let them do the work. If you come to the University of Wisconsin you will see a number of different opinions in print around campus and publicaly announced, so clearly there is the right to do so. Most of these are poorly written diatribes and of local interest (if anyone is interested that is) which is why they never get out. There are some good columnists who don't toe the government line, but they have relatively limited circulation in that there are multiple voices and it's hard to rise above the crowd unless you get picked up by one of the major news services.

This is different from the government stifling free speech, but it can have the same effect.

[Robi D]

quote:Originally posted by sz_matyas

Suppose I could take this point by point as I really have nothing better to do with my time right now.

This is the way to get results fast. Diplomacy UN style has proven a general failure. Economic sanctions take time and often don't work when the rest of the world doesn't participate. Even when they do, it doesn't always work well (see N. Korea for example where the situation is worse than if we had invaded with intent to win a while ago)

Turns out i have some free time too. Bombing might get fast results but are those results desirable? My answer is no. Sanctions don't work because they never hurt the government but the people which has the effect on making the government stronger since it increases the dependancy on people. North Korea is a case of one state invading another. As unpleasent as it is then i agree that action has to be taken. Self defence is a right and helping some defend themselves is also a right if it abides by international laws. Diplomacy is the first and best option, and usually the reson it fails is because one of the parties want it to fail, because they want war.

quote:Considering that Australia was started by British Imperialism and gained a good infrastructure network as well as a concept of British human rights principles and free market ideas I would consider you gaining from imperialism (same could be said for the US, though it wasn't just the British with us). As far as US meddling, my argument is weak at best, I was confusing a couple things in my mind and best I can come up with now is the US deciding that it wanted to defeat Japan rather than simply protect itself in WWII (I know it's weak).

Australia didn't have minimal infrastructure when it became a country in 1901. Up until that point it was a collection of British colonies rules by a governer appointed directly from Britan. That is hardly democractic. They also were very brutal towards the native population, it was basically a conquest of their lands and claiming it for the British empire. None of those actions provided democracy. Democracy is not something that can be forced on a people from above, it is something that people amongst themselves must agree to do and persue implementing it from the ground up. The British Empire had no desire for this to happen, they wanted a colony that they directly controled, just like the situation in America. You had to fight a war against them to implement your democracy, where as we more lucky in that they didn't fight it here, i guess you showed them how diffcult and expensive a far away war can be. Yet you seem to have forgetten your history looking at your actions today.

quote:I don't remember any bombing/invasion scenarios involving eastern europe in the past 10 yrs. Despite Russia almost openly provoking people, we haven't talked about invading them, so I think eastern bloc countries generally are fans of the US despite our meddling there.

They got in before you had the chance. I would agrue the support of govenments in the east you recieve isn't mirrored in the general population. And as for Russia provoking people is propaganda. America has been provoking Russia since the end of the cold war, and now they are fighting back. You agree not to extend NATO eastward, only to renege and do so, your encircling Russia via NATO and wonder why they are not happy.

quote:Sure didn't start that way. Looked a lot like what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan when we invaded and started dictating terms of government while keeping a massive military presence. You can't have it both ways, this was imperialism by the standard you set.

The main terms of dicating to Japan was in regards to the military. America did not try to influence the political sphere and the japanese government was never dependent on american military support to keep it in power. Also Japan had invaded many nations and attacked america, Iraq and Afaghanistan had done neither.

quote:Often they fall through decadence or foreign invasion, not just through uprisings of the people or dissatisfaction of the oppressed. Even if it is an uprising of "the people" that doesn't necessarily help them, just ask the people of Cuba or sub-Saharan Africa if everything is fixed now that the imperialistic overlords are gone.

Without realising it you have made my point. When you push people to exteme actions more often then not they will turn to a choice that might be even worse then the previous one, but they will do that to get rid of you, like i said people prefer to have their own asshole in power instead of one of yours. And besides that is their choice and their their problem to fix. Only they can fix it. If they fail its their failure to live with. They will only become free and democractic when they and they alone agree to it and persue it. As for Cuba, it is US sanctions that are keeping Castro in power.

quote:Maybe I should have said it straight so that you wouldn't have to wonder if it was a euphemism. Propaganda and indoctrination are how knowledge is passed and how schools work. Someone is telling everyone how to think, the question is are they doing it primarily for the student or student

.
Teaching some the laws of physics or that 2+2=4 along with the other laws of the universe is one thing. Telling someone you must vote for 'A' because 'B' is bad is another. People can only improve themselves. There is a saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

quote:We actually agree, wow.

Well i'm not being disagreable just for the sake of it.

quote:Our politicians are generally short-sighted and stupid. Human rights issues is why the church developed the just war doctrine, it isn't perfect and if people don't follow it, it's worthless. The Musharaf situation in Pakistan is a tricky one to say the least. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and if we simply left things be at the moment odds are some would end up in the hands of Waziristan which has openly stated they would be willing to use them against the West. The US doesn't have the political and military will to invade and hold things in check while we still have open issues in Iraq and Afghanistan with Iran flexing its muscle. This would be a perfect instance for the rest of the world to step up (especially as the assassination of Bhutto gave them a great opportunity), sadly the rest of the world has generally shown its colors.

There you go, you meddle and people turn to to someone who is worse just to rebel against you. Had you not supported Musharaf he would not have had the power to dictate so much, he would have been forced to a more moderate position, this in turn would have allowed moderates to succeed. So your support is forcing people to more extreme positions, which in turn means more meddling or your behalf and so on and so on. Its a never ending cycle unless someone breaks it by deciding to stop their actions.

quote:
I know you didn't, just wanted to cut off the rant before it started.

Why would it start. Again i don't agrue just for the sake of it

quote:One of the keys to both democracy and the free market is that people making decisions (who to vote for/whether to sell/how much to pay/etc.) are well informed. Obviously people don't have the time or ability (let alone the will) to be informed on everything. With minor things, such as which store to shop at, we can use heuristics to cope with our lack of information and a marginally bad decision doesn't hurt much (maybe we spent an extra 10%, but that's just $5-$10). Much of the point of advertising is to misinform consumers regarding the relative value of your product. With democracy you are asking people with no personal knowledge of the candidates to sift through intentionally deceptive ads, commentary and votes on bills that contained tens to hundreds of provisions (which usually include things for both sides, allowing any vote to be cherry picked as either pro or con for both sides) to find the truly best solution. Only here a marginally bad solution costs billions of dollars and could plunge the world into chaos. Using chain representation (i.e. I vote for state legislator who votes for senator who votes on judges) means that knowledge of the person and campaigning can be more effective leading to better choices. It also would remove chunks of the budget as pork projects no longer carry their power (they would still be around, spoils systems always come back, just the incentive for $100M bridges to nowhere would disappear from the senate with the old way of electing them).

Laziness and igronorace is not evidence of too much democracy. If people can spend time keeping up to date with the goings on of hollywood or their favorite sport then they can take their time to keep up with politics. The problem it seems is people in america and the west in general have become too complaisant. Democracy is not a natural state, it is something that requires constant vigilance otherwise it will disappear. You get bombarded with misleading information, why put up with it. Complain, protest, damned better. It is your right afterall. So why just everyone just go with the flow and remain silent? We all have a brain to use, not using it and remain igronant isn't an excuse.

quote:
The government learned that propaganda works and if they helped the major news services, they would get favorable coverage and it would generally drown out opposing voices. Since they are willing to get the stories, the press is willing to let them do the work. If you come to the University of Wisconsin you will see a number of different opinions in print around campus and publicaly announced, so clearly there is the right to do so. Most of these are poorly written diatribes and of local interest (if anyone is interested that is) which is why they never get out. There are some good columnists who don't toe the government line, but they have relatively limited circulation in that there are multiple voices and it's hard to rise above the crowd unless you get picked up by one of the major news services.

This is different from the government stifling free speech, but it can have the same effect.

Thats a fair assessment. But i don't see the difference between a gorvenment overtly controling the press and doing so covertly. I would say that the latter is more insidous then the former.

[Matrix]

I saw Thirteen Days again the other day. If Nixon had won the 1960 elections the Cold War would've become a very hot one in october 1962! Why you ever gave these neo-conservaties the power is beyond me.

[sz_matyas]

I highly doubt that it would have become hot in 1962. It would have either become hot earlier, or there would have been a situation similar to 1980 with the Iran hostage situation, where they decide not to push to the brink of war. Do I know which and would it necessarily have been better? no and no, but in my opinion allowing yourself to appear to have your hands tied emboldens people to try stuff like that. This is a large part of why even if we were going to retreat from Iraq, I wouldn't want it trumpeted all over as a political issue.

[grahamiam]

Democrates did a pretty good job of making the cold war pretty hot in the 1960's.

You have to view this type of thing remembering the historical alignments of the parties, not in today's current alignment. Back in the 1960's, conservative Democrates were the Neo-conservatives, not the Republicans (who were actually primarily for isolationism and small goverment). Neo-conservatives didn't become a Republican thing until the 1970's, ironically enough, when Nixon did actually win the White House. However, they only finally became Republicans because they rebelled against the Democrates in Congress, and George McGovern, who were trying to get us out of Vietnam.

How would a 1960's Nixon handle the Cuban Missle Crisis? Who knows. Nixon's campaign was based on keeping the "peace and prosperity" of Eisenhower going, while Kennedy was the one fixated on militarily falling behind the USSR.

[Matrix]

Well, I can't do anything but take your word for it. But it was notably Nixon who proposed dropping a nuclear bomb on Vietnam. I can't imagine such an idea would ever occur to Kennedy.