Does anyone see something wrong with this?

[Andrew]

National Post September 22, 2004

The lines

Bush to UN: U.S. at war for liberty

Iraq first step in plan to spread democracy, assembly told

I mean OMG he plans on invading other countries simply to spread democracy??

That kind of reminds me of when people spread christianity or other religions, which killed many people all for the sake of "my religion is right, yours is not" "My form of government is right, yours is not"

To me Bush seems like a dictator. Telling what other countries to do or else.

Later in the article, it says that most of the UN's countries are controlled by depspotic or authoritarian rulers.

2 countries down (Afghan and Iraq), dozens to go.

Yes Afghan was a good invasion and actually worked for the most part (even though it is ignored now).

Guess this proved what we talked about in marketing where the US #1 concern is freedom.

Sure, democracy is a good thing, but since Bush got in office he wants to "fix" the world in a day. And I don't think sending thousands of troops into war with several countries is worth democracy (and definitely not good for America...bankruptcy). Vietnam on a global scale anyone?[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[Dante]

I figured as soon as people forgot Afghanistan in favour of Iraq that it would be a conquering spree. I think he's just working himself up until he can invade France. If that happens and we still support him, I am leaving the country. France would be nice.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Andrew

[Andrew]

I simply meant that they were going to war simply because they believe in something, whether it is true or not. (Yes democracy is the best form of government, but during the religious wars people thought that their religion was the best.)

Still going to war for democracy isnt justifiable. How can the US decide which countries to "free"? The ones that are the biggest threat to the US, the countries that will give the best return for freeing them or the countries in most need?

Why doesn't the US go and "free" all nations now? (I know it is impossible) Why later? Not being fair to all countries that are under a suppressive government.

Sad part is, Say the US and allies were to invade North Vietnam in 6 months on a full scale, we will have forgotten about Iraq (except for the oil ::))

People in Afghanistan are complaining that they are being forgotten and that those bad guys are coming back.

Yes USA is testing its' military and will be most battle ready in the world. I mean if Bush was real about fixing the economy he would've spent trillions on the economy and not invading Iraq.

[Dude_Doc]

Maybe it's the first step for the long awaited world government.

Though, it is a fact that the US has enough firepower to conquer the world. Then of course, democracy is achieved when people of a given area/country realizes that their current leader/system is corrupted and false.

Even if it does sound crazy, but some countries may fare better with despotic and dictatorial means. If you take a look on the middle east, Saudi Arabia, Libya (for example) have had their leaders for some time now, and still, they haven't revolved to replace them. This doesn't mean that people really want their form of government, but perhaps that not enough people see the meaning of democracy.

In the West, on the other side, people are living rich and mighty, and because many people are living like this, they feel that their might and power should extended, which requires laws and freedoms, in which why we see democracy as the best form of government.

In the middle east, on the other hand, people don't live as rich or as powerful as in the West, which means that they don't (or won't) "need" or require as much democracy as we do.

Remember that we were once living under the rule of kings too, in a time where many people didn't have as much wealth and power as now.

Ironically, it is like faith, only you can choose to believe, no one can force you into it. It simply isn't right.

[Dante]

Maybe it's the first step for the long awaited world government.

Led by that guy? *shudders*

Andrew

[DukeLeto]

Though, it is a fact that the US has enough firepower to conquer the world.

The world may disagree with that.  I think that China, Russia, France, Japan, or any similarly industrializerd nation could put up so much of a fight it would be impossible to defeat them by ground invasion.

[Andrew]

Maybe he meant blow up the rest of the world?

[DukeLeto]

Well you've hardly conquered anything if you blow it all up (and most likely get yourself blown up in the process).

[thomas]

Bush just scares me right now . . . :-[

[Acriku]

Hmm, invading countries under the veil of promoting ideals favored by the invaders, this doesn't sound wrong to anybody? It's irrelevant what the ideals are, the point is that this is not the way to go about things.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The internal politics of other countries are none of their business, none of our business, and the business solely of those who live there.

You say it like it is some universal rule

[Andrew]

Sigh

Democracy?

Sure there would probably be suicide attacks at polling stations, but that is most likely because all of the candidates are pro american. I mean if a candidate was running that disliked the US, then they would all go vote. But nooo.

[ordos45]

Actually there are rumors Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani might boycott the elections, forget the reason though.

[TMA_1]

if this is true, than it does sound really horrible. The funny thing is, I hear people like Pat Robertson say that a democratic republic is the most Godly of political systems. It seems to me though that through my reading the best of all human systems in the bible is a monarchy. The reason being is it is the least likely to suffer from beurocracy, and a clutter of ideas that can bog a nation down. Though a monarchy is more dangerous, it is also more able to make a difference. It has suprisingly more of a human element involved because you dont need as much massive organizing and situating which can dehumanize a government system. anyways I know I could get into an arguement about this so Ill just shut up.lol

anyways if it is true this is horrible. But dont just blame america, this kind of attitude has been around for awhile, and europe is just as guilty in past history. I think that we need to be careful in not slandoring america, which seems so popular these days.

[Andrew]

Best way to describe it.

Assimilation. We are replacing their values and culture.

Assimilation and acculturation has been going on around the world since it started. Every nation is at fault.

You could almost say it is inevitable that the world becomes one homogenous culture (with subcultures because of environmental and regional issues)

[Caid Ivik]

National Post September 22, 2004

The lines

Bush to UN: U.S. at war for liberty

Iraq first step in plan to spread democracy, assembly told

I mean OMG he plans on invading other countries simply to spread democracy??

That kind of reminds me of when people spread christianity or other religions, which killed many people all for the sake of "my religion is right, yours is not" "My form of government is right, yours is not"

To me Bush seems like a dictator. Telling what other countries to do or else.

Later in the article, it says that most of the UN's countries are controlled by depspotic or authoritarian rulers.

2 countries down (Afghan and Iraq), dozens to go.

Yes Afghan was a good invasion and actually worked for the most part (even though it is ignored now).

Guess this proved what we talked about in marketing where the US #1 concern is freedom.

Sure, democracy is a good thing, but since Bush got in office he wants to "fix" the world in a day. And I don't think sending thousands of troops into war with several countries is worth democracy (and definitely not good for America...bankruptcy). Vietnam on a global scale anyone?

I would join his wars in any day, if they would be based on it.

[Andrew]

But since he is now going after oil... (you mean?)

Well when he first got into office I don't remember Bush saying that he will spread democracy by invading countries. Just after 9/11 did he go after Afghan, and he saw success with it so he went for something bigger and would actually help USA (oil).

I mean if a country is having problems, then send in peacekeepers (which Canada invented(?):P). Don't invade a country. Didn't Saddam say he would let UN troops in Iraq for WMD inspection?

[Caid Ivik]

Were you voting for him? Don't make yourself an expert on american politics, especially that voting style. Tough it isn't the best possibility, it's the best on the world right now.

[Andrew]

No, I live in Canada. :)

I don't have to worry about whether my government is going to invade a country. Just have to worry about social issues such as healthcare, education etc.

But I certainly wouldn't vote for Bush.

Surprised he hasn't invaded Canada for its' social values. (Drinking age, gay marriage, healthcare...)

[Caid Ivik]

Be happy that I'm not on Bush's place ;D

[Dante]

You say it like it is some universal rule

[DukeLeto]

You say it like it is some universal rule  scribed onto the side of a mountain by a God.  Its really just your opinion.  And my opinion is that other nation's affairs are our business.

And they wonder why the rest of the world hates us.

It doesn't seem even slightly hypocritical to you to spread peace and democracy by telling people that they are retarded (because we said do), that their system of government is wrong (because we said so), and then proceeding to blow the sh!t out of them (because we can)?

[Caid Ivik]

So if my neighbours start doing things I don't like, I can go round to their place and occupy their house, putting down insurgents and spreading my own ideals into their family, yes?

Their house is their kingdom, and other countries are their own rulers. The USA is not some kind of world police force.

You don't know history, and same with present. Police is internal, army external, and USA is simply fulfilling their imperial ambitions. If Slovaks would be the strongest nation we would do so as well. We see our culture simply too worthy to limit in on us, if you understand.

[Dante]

Well if you're going to be imperial about it then fine. If the USA actually occupied Iraq and called it part of the USA, or a colony, I wouldn't mind so much. Imperialistic conquering is fine.

To clarify: the internal affairs of a country are its own business, invading and occupying a country because it is ot doing what you want is not a satisfactory reason. Satisfactory reasons include: 'We want your money,' 'we want your land,' 'we want your oil,' 'we just want to expand a military empire,' 'we want to conscript our citizens because our own don't much like the idea of becoming cannon fodder...' etc. I'm all in favour of old-fashioned conquering, so long as the conquerers go for old-fashioned pillaging, in a modern sense of course.