NY Times: War on the Cheap

[thebullet]

Have you compared the rate of mental disorder, adhd, bi polar acclivity and wondered if maybe your socialist, egalitarian society might be at fault?

Or is it possible that the various mental disorders that seem to be occuring not only in Canada but also in the US's children are a result of exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment, in the products that are sold as safe? Why is ADHD suddenly affecting so many children? Why are many females entering puberty earlier than in the past? Is it due to the chemicals in hair products that many use, such as estrogen?

This is nothing new, really. Apparently many of the nobility in the Roman Empire were suffering from lead poisoning. They were using lead cups which were too expensive for the masses to use. Nero, Caligula and others may well have been poisoned by their environment. And the same thing may well be happening to our children.

As usual, Amicus, you are blowing smoke up your own ass.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Amicus said, //The sixty years since the end of world war two have seen the defeat of international communism and the advent of a democratic form of government in dozens of countries around the world.

As with the Brits, it has been costly to the Americans.//

He seems to claiming A)some substantive American help and responsibility in setting up the alleged democracies, but alternatively he's simply saying B) democracies started to exist for whatever reason (US in some possibly indirect connection; or maybe no connection).

Boxlicker's list.

Okay: Japan, (excluded as part of the challenge)

South Korea (Formerly part of the Japanese Empire),
Taiwan (also part of Japan),
---these are quasi democracies with huge infusions of US military funds. South Korea has jailed lots of dissident candidates, and has thousands of US troops there to 'protect' it.

The Philippines (formerly US possession),
---The US opposed the democratic mvt early in the century. The US was very cosy with the longrunning Marcos regime, which is better classed as right wing dictatorship. Major US military presence for many years. Some democratic mvt since Marcos, but quite corrupt.

India (formerly British possession),
---OK, but US role is unclear and likely minimal.

Italy, Germany,
---both, esp. Germany *had democracies prior to the fascists. US helped re-institute democracy with W Germany as military ally.
There's good reason to exclude these, with Japan as special cases, under US occupation.

Israel,
---democratic state founded; heavy US military subsidy.

Finland,
---complicated case, but no clear role of the US; indeed Finns got independence from Russian by being neutral. (Avoiding US connections.)

Russia,
---recent paper article mentioned taking Russia off the 'free countries' list.

Austria (formerly part of Germany);
--special case classed with Germany.

Poland,Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary,
---former E. European (and Baltic) countries. Some degree of democracy, but highly unstable, created in wake of end of Soviet Union.

Spain,
---US supported Franco for decades and the suppression of democracy. Later eased and allowed some democracy.

South Africa
---Complex case; independence from Britain; fascist period for decades with Mandela in prison. US supported, armed and funded.

Chile, Nicaragua,
--- US installed military dictatorship in the former, undermined the democracy in the latter.

This is getting boring.

Mexico.
Egypt
----
First Summary. If the claim is merely that democracies emerged, several did so in the wake of British, French, Dutch, and American colonial efforts.

The Philippines is perhaps the best case to illustrate 'helpful' effects of US (induction of many of the women into prostitution around the US bases) 'education in democracy' following US control.

Germany was a pre-existing democracy.

As to Eastern Europe, the ballots are still out. Witness present Ukraine situation. Czech Republic is perhaps the best case, though it's unclear what the US did to help, if anything. In general I suppose amicus, box, Rummy, Wolfie, etc. are going to claim 'liberation' of E. Europe.

In a number of other cases the results of US help are quite mixed, as in supporting Pinochet's coup and executions of enemies at one time, now supporting a more democratic gov. So there are a number of cases of alternate dictatorship/democracy, with US on both sides of the fence (at different times, mostly), as it suits the US.

Second, more concise summary, and narrowing of the thesis. I'd say that, confining onself to cases where US controlled the place, then fostered democracy, you've got one, maybe a couple more arguable cases (Philippines, Taiwan, S. Korea)

We exclude US control(=occupation) of combatants of WWII as special cases.

The cases you have left present generally an opportunistic and very mixed picture where the US had strong influence; moving to fascism or democracy with huge concessions to US companies as convenient (e.g., Chile).

How does this bear on Iraq?

The Bushies want to liken Iraq to Germany or Japan, and neither is a good analogy. Japan is the best of the bad analogies. [No American occupiers were killed in Japan during the reconstruction period. Think about it.]

Whether 'democracy' will come to either Agh'n or Iraq as a result of US is very questionable, and the above list doesn't give reason to be optimistic. If you ask me, there's a bit of resemblance to the case of Chile, for the US supported Saddam--like Pinochet-- for quite a while.

The challenge, as I understood it, was to name "dozens of countries that have become democracies" partly through the efforts of the USA and UK, and that is what I did. I'm not equating this to anything else, just answering the challenge.

Remember, this was since WW2, meaning that Germany, Italy, Japan and Austria should be included, whether or not they had some experience with democracy before WW2 or not. The nations I included were not democracies before VE Day or VJ Day and they are now, at least to a considerable extant. As long as the population of a country elects their government in a free and secret election, I would consider that country to be a democracy. If you have some other definition, I would like to hear it.

In most of Central and South America, the governments in 1945 were military dictatorships and now, largely because of American aid, there is a tendency toward democracy. They haven't all achieved this yet but that is the tendency. It is true that the US supported military dictatorships, helping to suppress revolutionaries, but this was because these revolutionary movements were seen as inimical to our interests. The same could apply to Spain and to other countries.

The Baltic States or nations of eastern Europe were Soviet satellites or parts of the USSR and the US success in the Cold War ended these situations. We were extremely influential in these instances.

 

[Liar]

A solid rebuttal list there, pure. Except for this part:

Poland,Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary,
---former E. European (and Baltic) countries. Some degree of democracy, but highly unstable, created in wake of end of Soviet Union.

Some degree of democracy,

If you also think of Italy, Greece or Sweden, (or the US of A for that matter) to have "some degree of democracy" then yes, I agree with that. Their democratic system is pretty well functioning. Also, the participation level in elections in the baltic states and in Poland for instance is higher than in the US or here in Sweden.

but highly unstable,

On what do you base that claim? Estonia, Latvia, Romania and Poland have a problem with organised crime. But I seriouslty doubt that there are instabilities that could lead to a coup or civil unrest there. No more than in a place like Spain.

created in wake of end of Soviet Union.
Aye.

#L

 

[Gary Chambers]

You fecking Canadians just don't get it, do you?

I can understand you feeling second class with your failing socialist economy, your high prices, your high taxation, your lack of any basic national identity.

But to ignore the fact that the U.S. Military protected your sorry ass during the cold war is downright ungrateful.

And in case you don't know, the Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI, named StarWars by the left wing, has been operational for over a decade.

And for your information, the B2 stealth bomber is, in a technological sense, a stepping stone to the next generation of weapons to deter aggression from whereever it may raise its ugly socialist head.

As usual, you have your head up your Liberal ass.


amicus...


http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?Search=Yes

On the other thread I tried to remain nice and reasonable. Here you get as you give, you warmongering asshole, neonazi P.N.A.C. worshipping prick.

Canada has lots of problems, but one of them isn't a failing economy except for the large portion of it owned by by ignorant Corporate-Christians from south of the border. Our economy is strong enough that we can still afford to tell Pres. Nepotist where to shove his war. The Iraq War is strengthening our national identity. I have never seen so many normally reserved Canadians openly expressing their gratitude for having stronger historic ties to Europe than to the U.S.A.

The Cold War didn't exist except in the minds of a bunch of McCarthyists in Washington D.C. The average Russian knew nothing of it, and to Russian V.I.P.'s like Kruschev it was obvioulsy just a game. Russia is an old European mammoth, Amicus. It just saw the U.S.A. as an amusing pup snapping at its heels. It was easy to win a war you only imagined wasn't it. Mesapotamia is a tougher nut to crack. Grow up, Amicus. Russia is not about to attack you, through Canada or anywhere else. It doesn't have to. It has already announced that it's switching from petrodollars to euros as a reserve and trading currency, along with a host of other nations, so it can just sit back and watch your economy go down the gurgler, because your leader is too stupid to negotiate a deal. Of course, I suppose all this is not widely reported where you live.

It's the same thing that happened after WW2. The whole world had to sit down and negotiate a new way to manage its economy. It created a gold standard, and the U.S.A. shipped forty trainloads of gold into Fort Knox to support its dollar. A forerunner to today's neocon morons, Richard Nixon, trashed that agreement with the stroke of a pen in 1971, and now someone has to renegotiate to put it right again. Pres. Nepotist is not equal to that task, Amicus. The world doesn't trust him and doesn't like him. He's too fond of things that go bang in the night, and can barely speak a sentence clearly enough to negotiate something as complex as a new monetary system. Having such an inadequate specimen in power at a time like this puts your nation at a great disadvantge.

Meanwhile, while you try to scare people about pending attacks by millions of Muslims, the only people doing any attacking are a small number of nutball religious extremists from the Middle East and Waco. And who gives a monkey's about your poxy superweapons? Guerilla warfare defeated you in Vietnam, is doing the same in Iraq and will do it everywhere else you go. The whole world does not want to be American and does not accept America as the world's cop. It never did. If you're such a patriot, why don't you read Eisenhower's farewell speech again? Maybe it will sink in this time. Stop and think what a great American he was; what a great Republican conservative he was, how he won the respect of the entire world, and then look at that nepotistic little swine that people like you have put into the White House and unleashed on the world. The two men don't even compare. It's chalk and cheese.

Here it is. I wouldn't want you to wear out your few remaining brain cells trying to find it:
http://www.erinmccord.com/cw/Dwight_Eisenhower.html

Like most great generals, Eisenhower was a man of peace. Bush's P.N.A.C. pals on the other hand, were plotting the Iraq War years before he was even appointed to office. I notice that like most neocons you demand links because you're too damned lazy or stupid to find them yourself, so here it is:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Osama and George are cut from the same cloth, both spoiled oil boys with more money than common sense. Their extreme wealth without noblese oblige is more obscene than anything you can find on this or any other Web site. They are fighting a private war and involving everyone else. Wake up for Christ's sake. The oil and arms industries are not all there is to life. Read Adam Smith. That was workable capitalism. Marx said it wouldn't work because greedy crooks would destroy it. Everything Bush is doing is simply proving that Marx was right.

Instead of dismissing other nations and their social systems as failures, take a good look at your own system. You live in the most indebted nation on Earth. You have a fiat currency based only on supply and demand, and that demand is dropping fast. Nobody really owes America anything. What can you do, call in all your loans to impoverished nations ravaged by famine and disease? America owes the world, big time, and Pres. Nepotist is increasing that debt by millions with every breath he takes. How will you ever pay that debt when your damned dollar sinks to Davey Jones' Locker? Do you think the Bush family will pay it for you? Half the Bush family put up a Web site during the election begging people not to vote for George, but I guess you didn't notice. No matter, it's still there:
http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com/pages/1/index.htm

The whole world lost citizens on 9-11. It was after all The World Trade Centre. You had the world's support for a war against terror, but your wannabe fighter jet pilot president burned all that support by using the 9-11 attack as an excuse to invade a nation that had nothing to do with the event. Nations are a bit like people, Amicus. Iraq is a very old nation, weak in its limbs but wise beyond your wildest dreams. It will run your boys around in deadly circles forever, and all Pres. Nepotist can think to do about it is send his P.N.A.C. buddies over there to thumb their noses at your troops. "If I say you fight naked, then you fight naked," that's his message to the troops. Where's your head, Amicus, can't you see your president is depriving some village of its idiot?

Ahh, what's the use? Half of the U.S.A. is made up of normal, decent people, and the other half are cloth eared assholes who refuse to speak or hear truth unless they think it's a lie. You belong to the latter half, so this is just a waste of bandwidth.

 

[thebullet]

Geez, Gary, when you've had enough, you've really had enough.

Good rant. I'm afraid that Amicus won't read it and if he does he won't understand it.

It goes against all of his illusions.

But I liked it. A person honest with himself will see that it has the ring of truth.

 

[amicus]

My, my, the bullet and gary....or was that Benny and the Jets, no they weren't canadians, that was Kathryn Dawn Lang, or was she a limey?

Russia a mammoth? a wooly mammoth or the american type, and Persia still has its greatness out there in the camel dung and the pomegranate? spare me.

We be a motley crue...we yanks...the yapping puppy of mixed parentage migrated mostly from the stench of medieval europe.

I have been to the glorious capitol cities of europe and into the hinterlands, the countryside, where many live in continuing pastoral poverty, dreaming of the carefree days of peasantry where they knew just who they were and why they were.

I can understand the jealousy first and then the hatred as you lust for everything american but lack the courage to bring it about in your own sqalid environment, opting for social security instead of freedom of choice.

If that rant is the best you have to offer, join the long list who have retired from the field of battle and turned their back on the frightening exposure of the moral bankruptcy of formerly influential nations.

The next 500 years will be american years...I for one would quarantine the whole of europe, eastern and western and perhaps import only truffles and caviar. You can keep your damned volvo's and peugeot's. Oh, yeah, I would offer asylum to the river dance troupe.

And I will keep my old e-jag thank you.

amicus the obnoxious

 

[Pure]

Hi Liar,

Welcome to the fact based discourse. Amicus' fantasy is as hard to nail as a piece of jello, to a wall.

I think some of your points are well taken, that for instance Poland is fairly democratic.

pure: Some degree of democracy,

liar":If you also think of Italy, Greece or Sweden, (or the US of A for that matter) to have "some degree of democracy" then yes, I agree with that. Their democratic system is pretty well functioning. Also, the participation level in elections in the baltic states and in Poland for instance is higher than in the US or here in Sweden.

Pure: but highly unstable,

Liar On what do you base that claim? Estonia, Latvia, Romania and Poland have a problem with organised crime. But I seriouslty doubt that there are instabilities that could lead to a coup or civil unrest there. No more than in a place like Spain.

Pure: created in wake of end of Soviet Union.

Liar Aye.




Eastern Europe (including lately the Ukraine) has to looked at case by case; for instance, Romania, I think, IS plausibly characterized as I did, "quasi democracy" and unstable, see the excerpt below. Esp. suspect are conditions in Romania, Ukraine, etc. where the old Communist parties, often pro Soviet, simply change names.

Here is some Romanian info, including a tidbit from the CIA

http://www.traveldocs.com/ro/govern.htm

travel document systems {sounds like a neutral source}

GOVERNMENT Romania's 1991 constitution proclaims Romania a democracy and market economy, in which human dignity, civic rights and freedoms, the unhindered development of human personality, justice, and political pluralism are supreme and guaranteed values. The constitution directs the state to implement free trade, protect the principle of competition, and provide a favorable framework for production. The constitution provides for a President, a Parliament, a Constitutional Court and a separate system of lower courts that includes a Supreme Court. The two-chamber Parliament, consisting of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, is the law-making authority. Deputies and senators are elected for 4-year terms by universal suffrage.

The president is elected by popular vote for a maximum of two 4-year terms. He is the Chief of State, charged with safeguarding the constitution, foreign affairs, and the proper functioning of public authorities. He is supreme commander of the armed forces and chairman of the Supreme Defense Council. According to the constitution, he acts as mediator among the power centers within the state, as well as between the state and society. The president nominates the prime minister, who in turn appoints the government, which must be confirmed by a vote of confidence from Parliament.

The Constitutional Court adjudicates the constitutionality of challenged laws and decrees. The court consists of nine judges, appointed for a term of 9 years. Three judges are appointed by the Chamber of Deputies, three by the Senate, and three by the president of Romania.

The Romanian legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code. The judiciary is to be independent, and judges appointed by the president are not removable. The president and other judges of the Supreme Court are appointed for terms of 6 years and may serve consecutive terms. Proceedings are public, except in special circumstances provided for by law.

The Ministry of Justice represents "the general interests of society" and defends the legal order as well as citizens' rights and freedoms. The ministry is to discharge its powers through independent, impartial public prosecutors.

For territorial and administrative purposes, Romania is divided into 41 counties and the city of Bucharest. Each county is governed by an elected county council. Local councils and elected mayors are the public administration authorities in villages and towns. The county council is the public administration authority that coordinates the activities of all village and town councils in a county.

The central government appoints a prefect for each county and the Bucharest municipality. The prefect is the representative of the government at the local level and directs any public services of the ministries and other central agencies at the county level. A prefect may block the action of a local authority if he deems it unlawful or unconstitutional. The matter is then decided by an administrative court.

Under new legislation in force since January 1999, local councils have control over spending of their allocations from the central government budget, as well as authority to raise additional revenue locally.

POLITICAL CONDITIONS
Romania has made great progress in institutionalizing democratic principles, civil liberties, and respect for human rights since the revolution. Nevertheless, the legacy of 44 years of communist rule cannot quickly be eliminated. Membership in the Romanian Communist Party was usually the prerequisite for higher education, foreign travel, or a good job, while the extensive internal security apparatus subverted normal social and political relations. To the few active dissidents, who suffered gravely under Ceausescu, many of those who came forward as politicians after the revolution seemed tainted by association with the previous regime.

Over 200 new political parties sprang up after 1989, gravitating around personalities rather than programs. All major parties espoused democracy and market reforms, but the governing National Salvation Front proposed slower, more cautious economic reforms. In contrast, the opposition's main parties, the National Liberal Party (PNL), and the National Peasant-Christian Democrat Party (PNTCD) favored quick, sweeping reforms, immediate privatization, and reducing the role of the ex-communist elite. There is no law banning communist parties (the Communist Party ceased to exist).

In the 1990 general elections, the FSN and its candidate for presidency, Ion Iliescu, won with a large majority of the votes (66.31% and 85.07%, respectively). The strongest parties in opposition were the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR), with 7.23%, and the PNL, with 6.41%.

Following the FSN Prime Minister Petre Roman's sacking (due to the miners' descent on Bucharest late 1991), a few months before the 1992 general elections, the FSN broke in two. President Iliescu's followers formed a new party called the Democratic Front of National Salvation (FDSN), while Roman's supporters kept the party's original title, FSN.

The 1992 local and national elections revealed a continuing political cleavage between major urban centers and the countryside. Rural voters, who were grateful for the restoration of most agricultural land to farmers but fearful of change, strongly favored President Ion Iliescu and the FDSN, while the urban electorate favored the CDR (a coalition made up by several parties -- among which the PNTCD and the PNL were the strongest -- and civic organizations) and quicker reform. Iliescu easily won reelection over a field of five other candidates. The FDSN won a plurality in both chambers of Parliament. With the CDR, the second-largest parliamentary group, reluctant to take part in a national unity coalition, the FDSN (now PDSR) formed a government under Prime Minister Nicolae Vacaroiu, an economist, with parliamentary support from the PUNR, PRM, and PSM. PRM and PSM left the government in October and December 1995, respectively.

The 1996 local elections demonstrated a major shift in the political orientation of the Romanian electorate. Opposition parties swept Bucharest and many of the larger cities. This trend continued in the national elections that same year, where the opposition dominated the cities and made steep inroads into rural areas theretofore dominated by President Iliescu and the PDSR, which lost many voters in their traditional strongholds outside Transylvania. The campaign of the opposition hammered away on the twin themes of the need to squelch corruption and to launch economic reform.

The message resonated with the electorate, which swept Constantinescu and parties allied to him to power in free and fair elections. The coalition government formed in December 1996 took the historic step of inviting the UDMR and its Hungarian ethnic backers into government.

The coalition government managed to retain power for four years despite constant internal frictions and going through three prime ministers, the last being the Governor of the National Bank, Mugur Isarescu. In elections in November 2000, the electorate punished the coalition parties for failure to improve the standard of living, and the PDSR (renamed PSD - Social Democratic Party at June 16, 2001 Congress) came back into power, albeit as a minority government.

In the concurrent presidential elections, former President Ion Iliescu decisively defeated the extreme nationalist Greater Romania Party (PRM) leader Corneliu Vadim Tudor. Tudor's party, however, gained the second largest number of seats in parliament.

Adrian Nastase, the new prime minister, early concluded an agreement with the ethnic Hungarian party (UDMR), which gave the PSD a de facto majority in parliament. In return, the UDMR obtained some of its longstanding goals of greater use of the Hungarian language in cities and counties where Hungarians were a majority or sizable minority, and increased use of Hungarian in schools, including the reestablishment of some high schools as all-Hungarian language schools.

The government also introduced new protections for Roma, including the establishment of an ethnic Roma advisor in prefect offices. The Government of Romania also tackled the thorny issue of restitution of property, both private and communal. Legislation has been passed that should eventually return all church property seized in the communist era. Still unresolved is the return of Greco-Catholic churches, which were given to the Romanian Orthodox Church by the communist regime.

The Nastase government also made progress on several rule of law and human rights issues. Steps taken in law enforcement include a new anti-corruption office; judicial reform efforts; movement on a new political party financing law; a human trafficking law. On human rights, the Government of Romania repealed communist-era legislation criminalizing homosexual acts and banned xenophobic and racist groups and their activities.

Romania continued to make progress in consolidating democratic institutions. The press is free and outspoken, although there have been some recent incidents of violence against journalists. Independent radio networks have proliferated, and a private television network now operates nationwide. In October 2003 citizens voted in favor of major amendments to the Constitution in a nationwide referendum necessary to bring Romania's organic law into compliance with European Union standards.

Government Type: Republic.
Constitution: December 8, 1991, amended by referendum October 18-19, 2003.
Branches: Executive--president (head of state), prime minister (head of government), Council of Ministers. Legislative--bicameral Parliament. Judicial--Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, and lower courts.
Subdivisions: 41 counties plus the city of Bucharest.
Political parties: Political parties represented in the Parliament are the Social Democratic Party (PSD), the National Liberal Party (PNL); the Democratic Party (PD); the Hungarian Democratic Union of Romania (UDMR); the Greater Romania Party (PRM). Other political parties include National Democratic Christian Peasant Party (PNTCD), the Romanian Humanist Party (PUR), the Party of the Romanian National Unity (PUNR), as well as political organizations of minorities.
Suffrage: Universal from age 18.
Defense: 2.4% of GDP.
----
----
CIA World Factbook {thought you might enjoy}
C
EAUSESCU was overthrown and executed in late 1989. Former Communists dominated the government until 1996, when they were swept from power by a fractious coalition of centrist parties. Currently, the Social Democratic Party forms a nominally minority government, which governs with the support of the opposition Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania. Bucharest must address rampant corruption, while invigorating lagging economic and democratic reforms, before it can achieve its hope of joining the European Union. Romania did join NATO in March of 2004.

 

[Pure]

hi ami,

you do tend to take cover when facts start coming out, as in your claims that the US has been spreading democracy since WWII.

as to your newer claim
The next 500 years will be american years...

This is an extension of the first: the American power will spread democracy (virtue) in the dictatorial (evil) world. Seeing as how it's done so well already.

The basic neocon documents dream of this, though the real conservatives are generally wary of assuming the role of 'world policeman and spreader of virtue'.

If indeed there were a couple successes, e.g., in the Philippines, it's by no means clear that the next 50 years, say, will be as good.
Afghanistan is very iffy, and opium production is up, warlords 'in.'

ADD to the picture that now the US, Russian, and China can unite in fighting terrorists, making the US move towards fascism, Russian lose the little freedom it gained (recently removed from 'free country' list of one thinktank) and China get even nastier with the Tibetans and muslims.

In other words, leaving aside the festering dictatorships and quasidemocracies you admire, as in Latin America, the main countries of the world will be moving towards *much less* freedom.

In the US, some, like Padilla [US citizen] have been arrested and held for a year with no charges or production of evidence, or proper access to legal counsel. So even were Afg'n to succeed, the 'failure' of Russia as a free and democratic country may overshadow that.

And don't forget the Chinese are buying up the US productive apparatus, running a trade surplus and using the money to strengthen their armed forces.

Lastly, even though US holding of the best weapons systems might continue for many decades, granted, but these are rendered ineffective against the new menaces from muslim terrorists. The world, in your world, can't be 'quarantined.'

 

[amicus]

well..pure...if there is anything wrong with the good ole USA, I am sure you will find it and scream about it.

I for one, do my best to see the good things and do my best to point those things out. But then, I have always been the eternal optimist.

I am happy that you are out there, along with the ACLU, insisting that individual rights be acknowledged and protected. I too am uneasy with the increased surveillance but...we have been attacked and may be again. That does require some adjustment.

The social security card you carry is already a national ID card, I fought that in the 60's...to no avail.

It is not difficult to see why islamic nations see america as the great satan. Aside from an ambiguous and nefarious moral code portrayed by media, the Mullah's and associated clerics see great danger to their power over the oppressed people as america, democracy and free trade makes inroads into the religious dynasties of the middle east.

I do yearn for a national voice of reason and logic on an intellectual and literate level. Not since the passing of Ayn Rand has there been a consistent voice advocating human freedom and liberty.

Keep up the good work at picking us apart, I need the exercise in defending freedom.

amicus...

oh...and have a good holiday season...

 

[Liar]

Hi Liar,

Welcome to the fact based discourse. Amicus' fantasy is as hard to nail as a piece of jello, to a wall.

Freeze the jello. Then apply duct tape.
Should work.



Wasn't very well versed on Romania, so I chose to avoid commenting on it. Good info there. Thnx.


#L

 

[amicus]

Damned, looks like I get nailed to the wall again...I hope the view is better than last time

amicus...

Happy Holidays Liar....

 

[Liar]

Damned, looks like I get nailed to the wall again...I hope the view is better than last time

amicus...

Happy Holidays Liar....

Company is good up there this weekend, with all the other fairytale creatures like elves and flying reindeers.

 

[Pure]

Hi Box,
This is a note about a claim of yours that Egypt has become democratic. I'd say 'fascist state' with trapping of elections is closer to the truth. One of many such states which the US considers it 'in the national interest' to support. Here's a recent report:

December 23, 2004
US Seeks to Silence Arab Democracy Activists

by Aaron Glantz

CAIRO - It's lunch time in Cairo and two dozen Egyptian activists and intellectuals take break for tea and date bars. They've gathered in a community center near the city's main train station to discuss new efforts to bring democracy to their country, which has been governed by an emergency law banning nearly all public expression for all of Hosni Mubarak's 23 year rule.

Also on the agenda, news reports saying the Bush administration is threatening to defund the entire United Nation's Development Program because of an as-yet-unpublished paper by Arab academics.

According to the head of the panel, Egyptian social scientist Nadir Ferangi , the Bush administration threatened to defund UNDP because the Arab academics who wrote the report implicated the U.S. government in human rights violations in the Middle East. "For example," he told Reuters, "the United States is suppressing the two national liberation movements in the Arab world – in Iraq and in Palestine."

At today's human rights meeting in Cairo, few were surprised at the development. "The American government supports the Egyptian government, and the Saudi Arabian, and [in years past] supported the Saddam government," noted Fereez Zehran, the event's keynote speaker. "This is the American policy: support the governments of the Middle East."

American taxpayers give the Egyptian military $1.3 billion dollars every year – making Mubarak's government the second largest recipient of U.S. arms after Israel. Since September 11 and Bush's war on terror, Egyptians say, America's interest in large scale crackdowns has intensified, as has Mubarak's brutality. After terrorist attacks in October killed 33 tourists near the Israeli border the Egyptian state has rounded up – and tortured – hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. None of them have been allowed to see a lawyer and only a handful have been charged with a crime.

Human rights lawyer Ahmed Saef al-Islam Hamed describes the Egyptian government's methods:

"First," he says, "the Egyptian government said the bombing was done by remote control, so they arrested everyone who had anything to do with remote control. Then they changed their mind. They said that what happened in Tabba happened using pipe bombs, so they arrested everyone with knowledge of pipes. Then they said that one of the bombers had a red car, so they arrested everyone who owned a red car and everyone who was employed driving a red car."

Even more worrisome, says Saef, is a new system the state security police will be using to watch over the people of Sinai. He says every person in Sinai is being assigned five people to watch for the authorities. Those who don't make regular reports will be punished. "It's fascism pure and simple," he says.

With the U.S. strongly backing the Mubarak government, activists here say they only have one option: to organize at the grassroots and take to the streets. But they have a problem.

"The emergency law controls everything in our society now," explains Hagag Nail, executive director of the Arab Program for Human Rights, "you can't speak, you can't make a meeting unless you have permission."

Nail concedes that popular mobilization against the government will send many people to prison, but he thinks it is necessary.

"We would like to connect to the people in the streets. It's the only way," he says. "The government may catch us and put us in the prison, but we will continue and continue and in the end we will arrive to change everything around us."

So far, though, few activists seem willing to risk prison to mobilize against the emergency law and the Mubarak government. Though dissatisfaction is high, opposition demonstrations are almost nonexistent. Next year will be critical. Hosni Mubarak's fifth term in office ends next year, and the 76-year-old leader has been grooming his son, Gamal, to take over.

----
Aaron Glantz is a reporter for Pacifica Radio and many other media outlets. He has visited Iraq twice during US occupation - for a month immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein and a second time - for three months - from February to May 2004. In addition to Pacifica, Aaron Glantz's reporting from Iraq has appeared on Radio France Internationale and the Christian Broadcasting Network. His work from Iraq has also been syndicated to newspapers around the world by Inter Press News Service and is author of the upcoming book HOW AMERICA LOST IRAQ.

 

[amicus]

A quick search shows Aaron Glantz, the author of the above report to work for the left wing organization, "Free Speech Radio Service"

A better view of Egypt might be gained by making some acquaintances in Cairo and elsewhere as I have and learn a little more about the Egyptian people, how they live and what they think of america and the middle east.

Spread that propaganda....

amicus...

 

[Pure]

well, yes, ami, it's a left wing source, but you don't produce any evidence to support that Egypt is a fledgling, not to say, flourishing democracy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

A quick search shows Aaron Glantz, the author of the above report to work for the left wing organization, "Free Speech Radio Service"

A better view of Egypt might be gained by making some acquaintances in Cairo and elsewhere as I have and learn a little more about the Egyptian people, how they live and what they think of america and the middle east.

Spread that propaganda....

amicus...

I would not accept face value anything said by this person, any more than I would accept, at face value, a report by David Duke on the relative intelligence of Black compared to White Americans.

Do you really believe the following is an accurate quote?


"First," he says, "the Egyptian government said the bombing was done by remote control, so they arrested everyone who had anything to do with remote control. Then they changed their mind. They said that what happened in Tabba happened using pipe bombs, so they arrested everyone with knowledge of pipes. Then they said that one of the bombers had a red car, so they arrested everyone who owned a red car and everyone who was employed driving a red car."

Even more worrisome, says Saef, is a new system the state security police will be using to watch over the people of Sinai. He says every person in Sinai is being assigned five people to watch for the authorities. Those who don't make regular reports will be punished. "It's fascism pure and simple," he says.

If it's accurate, do you believe it is the truth? Remember, it is a lawyer who is alleged to have said it.

Personally, I would define a democracy as a place where freedoms akin to the US First Amendment are enjoyed and where governments are elected by open elections by secret ballot. If that describes Egypt then the nation is a democracy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here is a report on the most recent election in Egyupt:

WEB SERVICES:



Polls open in final stage of Egyptian election
November 8, 2000
Web posted at: 1:29 AM EST (0629 GMT)


CAIRO, Egypt (Reuters) -- Egyptians began voting on Wednesday in the third and final stage of parliamentary elections that are certain to keep President Hosni Mubarak's party firmly in power.

Polls opened at 8 a.m. (0600 GMT) in the capital and the governorates of Giza, Qaliubya, Beni Suef, Menya, Assiut, New Valley and Marsa Matrouh. They were due to close at 7 p.m.

Voters were picking 160 legislators for the 454-seat People's Assembly, where Mubarak's National Democratic Party (NDP) held 94 percent of the seats, including 10 filled by presidential nominees, after the last poll in 1995.

In the first two stages of voting for 284 seats, the NDP took 224, many of them won by independents who had failed to win the NDP's nomination but rejoined the party after the vote.

Non-Islamist independents won 35 seats. Candidates backed by the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood gained a surprising 14 seats, despite complaints of harassment. Legal opposition parties won nine. Two seats in Alexandria have yet to be decided.

Copyright 2000 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED STORIES:
For more Middle East news, myCNN.com will bring you news from the areas and subjects you select.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED SITES:
See related sites about Middle East


Note: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.

Search CNN.com CNNSI.com CNNmoney.com The Web

 

[Boxlicker101]

Earlier, Cantdog challenged Amicus to name five democracies that had been established through Anglo-American influence since the end of World War 2. Being a busybody, I stuck in my nose and named 27, which is 5.4 times as much as was called for. These were basically off the top of my head and I wanted to name dozens, because that was what had been mentioned. There was a certain amount of poo-pooing because some of those I named are not model democracies, but choose their own path. Just to be thorough, here are another dozen:

Singapore: From British Crown Colony
Malaysia: From British possession
Venezuela: from military dictatorship.
Belize: From British possession.
Sri Lanka: From British possession.
Tunisia: From French possession
Bulgaria: from USSR satellite
Portugal: from Military dictatorship.
Brazil: from military dictatorship.
Iceland: from part of Denmark
Tanzania: from British possession.
Moldova: from part of USSR.

I can probably name more if I really have to but this is more than three dozen and meets the requirements that I have imposed on myself.

 

[SummerMorning]

Was it not the continual increase in number of mandatory missions to be flown, which was the underlying complaint in Joseph Heller’s WWII serio-comic novel “Catch-22”?

And was not the practise of giving precedence to economic considerations over military or humanitarian concerns at the heart of that problem?

Life imitating Art?

My exact thought. But no, it's not life imitating art. It's life.

 

[SummerMorning]

Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Egypt, Hungary, Mexico,

Egypt?!?!?

Democratic?

:rotfl:

 

[Pure]

Hey box,

That's a pretty impressive list of 36+ countries to which the Brits or Americans have brought democracy since WWII.

What you've done, in part, is add many colonies from which the Brits withdrew or were forced to withdraw. Assuming for the sake of argument that democracy followed British *withdrawal*, in certain cases, that's an odd way of arguing the democratic influence of Britain. Hell, in that sense the Russians brought democracy to Latvia and E. Europe.

Rhyming off names cannot substitute for facts; and some care must be taken to avoid the most obvious fallacy the _B follows A_ means _B was caused by A_. To take a case with which I'm quite familiar, Kenya. Which I'm certain would be on your list.

After the Mau Mau uprising, and the insurgency against the Brits, during which they *jailed* Kenyatta as dangerous, the Brits left, and a somewhat democratic 'national unity' government existed for a time, under Kenyatta. That's a kind of 'backward' (negative) British 'contribution' to democracy, I'd say.

Your list has become so laughable as to not be worth further dissection. You apparently believe there are several dozens of democracies in the world, whereas I doubt the number exceeds about 2 dozen. You apparently consider the Egyptian elections--not unlike the last Ukrainian ones --as signs of democracy.

According to your own figures, the ruling party of Egypt, last time, got 90+ % of the legislature in which 10 members are appointed by Mubarak.

Box [legislature] where Mubarak's National Democratic Party (NDP) held 94 percent of the seats, including 10 filled by presidential nominees, after the last poll in 1995.

This is a situation Reuters describes as holding from 1995 to at least 2000. Box, what does "94%" tell you? Duh.

(The Egyptian system is like giving Bush five extra appointments of Republicans to the US Senate, after the elections.)

What you might do also, is list the countries to which the US has brought or greatly strengthened dictatorships, since WWII: here's a few--Burma, Iran, Iraq (strengthening Saddam), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Nicaraugua, Salvador, Honduras, Cuba, Chile, Guatemala;--and at times past, Spain, Portugal.

Further, you might consider the UN-democratic direction taken by Russia, for some time, esp. in connection with Bush and the war on terror. No doubt you believe the US freed the Russians from the communist yoke, but you neglect to mention that the US is contributing to imposition of a nationalist/fascist 'state security' yoke.

 

[cantdog]

Washington has supported and even installed third-world fascist governments all over the world. The fate of Guatemalan democracy, subverted by the CIA in 1954 in favor of a regime of torture and oppression can be matched with that of Iran a year earlier. The Philippines, brutally subjugated at the turn of the century, was stripped of its democratic facade when the martial-law government of Marcos was established. Once Marcos was in, sharp increases in economic and military aid followed. Nearly all the third world fascist governments we supported: Marcos, Duvalier, Cedras, Iran's Shah, Pinochet, Trujillo, the Somozas-- used torture on an administrative basis. But in many of them, as Amnesty notes, the high incidence of political assassinations and institutionalized violence tends to overshadow the problem of torture.

Many people were tortured to death in Chile after the military coup of 1973 by means of endless whipping as well as beatings to death with fists and rifle butts. We toppled the Allende government and installed those pigs, signaling our approval with, once again, a significant upturn in economic and military aid.

Such details could be repeated for many thousands of human beings in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, U.S.-occupied South Vietnam to 1975, Iran, and other U.S. client states.

It's not a Republican problem. President Carter, as the Shah's U.S.-armed troops murdered hundreds of demonstrators in the streets, sent his support, reaffirming the sentiments he'd spoken at a banquet in Teheran some months earlier:
Iran under the great leadership of the Shah is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty, and to your leadership, and to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you.

Because stability is what's important, for the sake of one's investments.

Our clients in Latin America are the frontispiece of this argument, but Washington has globalized the banana republic.

 

[amicus]

Humorous is it not...when the Liberal mindset is challenged and the vast ignorance exposed, that they hunker down and mutter inanities?

The original reference was to a television program on the History channel, I think, Adventure in English. This program followed the centuries long growth, expansion and change of the English language brought about in part by the British Empire of yesteryear.

It also included the 'Americanization' of the language as the United States almost by default, took up the role of global influence put aside by Great Britain.

The program made the point that the very language brought about a movement towards democracy and gave a comparison of the number of countries now, opposed to then, that had become other than dictatorships, monarchies, and other forms ot totalitarian governments.

There are more democracies in the world now than ever before and the number has been increasing yearly. It has been doing so because of the free trade policies of the United States that eventually create an educated middle class and a demand for goods and services.

The program leaned heavily on Great Britain and the efforts to keep ocean trade routes free to commerce which again, led to prosperity, a growing middle class and eventually, a democratic form of government.

So you can see how this pattern effectively destroys the Liberal, Left Wing concept that the free market place, Capitalism, is a destructive force in the world.

It is, of course, just the opposite.

Change does not happen rapidly. A half century of oil profits going to Muslim countries has brought great changes and many more are on the way.

All is well in the United States of America, I say that openly for the many on this forum who have never set foot here and may not know for certain the state of the nation. The economy is sound and growing, employment is the highest ever, home ownership is the highest ever, the system is working just fine, thank you.

Seasons greetings to all and best wishes for a prosperous New Year....hello 2005!

amicus...

 

[Pure]

hi ami,

thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.

The program made the point that the very language [English] brought about a movement towards democracy and gave a comparison of the number of countries now, opposed to then, that had become other than dictatorships, monarchies, and other forms ot totalitarian governments.

Obviously the program vastly oversimplified the picture, and, as my and cant's examples show, failed to account for cases where "English" is connected first, to colonial oppression, like Pakistan, and somewhat later, to fascist governments.

This is just a variant of the idea that the Brits and the French, and the Dutch, with their languages helped 'civilized' the world.

To take an example, after the French attempt to 'civilize' Vietnam ended a bit after Dienbenphu, with its army taking heavy losses, the Americans stepped in, and brought 'democrats' like Diem (American catholic educated) to be their (America-pleasing) dictators. The new English speaking elite governed for some time, till overthrown, and the Americans finally left. No doubt you and Box will say that brought democracy, a bit of which exists now.

As I pointed out, many of Box's and your cases show an outbreak of democracy *despite* the Brits and the Americans. In the case of the Shah of Iran, a brief period of democracy followed the toppling of the Shah (from whom US withdrew support at the last moment.)

So, even if it were true that there is a trend toward more democracies existing--- one has to evaluate the US role and the role of 'free trade' for example--in causing or furthering that trend.
Further, it's possible for the US to take one side at one period, then switch at the next, as in suppressing the Philippinos early in the century, then easing up a bit, the helping Marcos suppress and rob them for years, then switching support to a slightly more democratic successor (as is the case with the transition after Pinochet and his dictatorship.)

To take a present example, the flow of "English" language into Russian and the former republics (like Kazakistan) is increasingly linked with authoritarian rule which, however, is friendly to certain companies (e.g., the oil companies operating in Kazackstan).

So the details of 'freedom' and democracy seem constantly to escape both you and Box, the latter having full confidence in an election in Egypt where the official party gets 94% of the vote and dissidents are jailed, people held without charges, etc.

merry xmas, ami. would that some of your rosy visions were true, and that less of the world is in misery this coming year. i have my doubts whether it's so, comparing this year and last, but one can hope.

 

[SummerMorning]

just for the record - "liberal" and "left wing" are not synonymous.

Liberalism refers to a philosophy promoting free trade and individual freedom.

"Left wing" refers, generally, to a philosophy promoting social equality and solidarity.