Link (http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2001/rmb_tell_the_truth.html)(old) article).

I do so agree. Republicans need to read this one, I feel, even though nearly no one still believes that the USA's being attacked by terrorists due to idiocy like "envy" or "a hatred of American ideals of freedom".

"People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No.

"We are not hated because we practice democracy, freedom, and human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism - and in the future, nuclear terrorism.

I disagree with Dr. Bowman's view on Afghanistan, but apart from that, what he says rings true.

Some of it makes sense. Some of it doesn't. His analysis of the sanctions against Iraq is lacks the neccesary nueance, as does his analysis of the Afghanistan Campaign. Ousting the Taliban was a significant strike against the Al-Qaida military and economic infrastructure. What it wasn't - and in that sense he is right - was a blow against the Al-Qaida ideology.

We are hated because our government denies these things to people in third world countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. And that hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism

Its a bit overblown, but he pretty much has a point. Of course, this isn't exclusive to the US, almost every country that has built an empire or become globally powerfull has put its own interests above those of other nations. Thats just the way it works.

Usually hte nation involved thinks its being nice and helping the poor countries, but (either through actual action against smaller countries, or as unnoticed side effects of selfish action) often the people on the other end don't see it that way.

Trade tariffs, exploitative multinational companies, political interference, percieved inequality of treatment, etc... all of these things play into the image that a country projects abroad.

In a way the issue of terrorism is cloesly linked with the issue of the way that western countries maintain their comfy lifestyle based on the (unsustainable) poorer lifestyle of those in other countries. It has as much to do with the Nike factories and oil extraction efforts asanything else.

I've never bought the daft "they are jealous of our freedom" argument. Thye may be "jealous" that you are living a comforable life based on their ard work. But it isn't the terrorists who are jealous, its the ordinary populations of poorer countries who se the rewards for their hard work go into the pockets of large multinational countries who are jealous. The terrorists just tap into this jealousy in order to fond recruits for wahtever their particular cause is.

It doens't even have to be islamic, or even religious based extremism... if you ahve a population that is exploited then you can convince them that almost anything is the answer to their prayers. You just have to look at the US depression, the rise of the nazi party and any other time people needed a scapegoat to see that.

But bush is STILL talking about "I think they're inspired by an ideology that's so barbaric and backwards that it's hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think" so he either hasn't got it yet, or isn't saying so if he has...

I liked this quote:
By far the world's best anti-terrorist apparatus is Israel's. Measured in military terms, it has been phenomenally successful. Yet Israel is still the primary target of terrorists and suffers more attacks than all other nations combined. If retaliation worked, Israelis would be the world's most secure people.
Which had a ring of truth to it...

i was reading about a totally different subject on a totally different site, when i came across this part of an article, which seemed relevant:

When I was 13, my family was transferred to Saudi Arabia. It was a life-changing move that still affects who I am years later. Prior to moving, I had to break the news to several friends. What ensued were the typical stereotypes that would normally ensue when discussing Saudi Arabia. "Are you going to ride a camel to school?" Are you going to live in a cave in the desert? Those were two of the main questions that were always asked by friends – of both my age and of adult age. Certainly, I didn't know much about the country, so I would have a hearty laugh and pass off the questions as jokes that were meant in good fun. I didn't know any better.

Upon moving to Saudi Arabia, my previous notions were dramatically altered. Things were not as the stereotypes had told me. There were industrialized cities with shops, restaurants, malls, etc. Camels were far and few between. I never saw a cave in the two years I lived there. Certainly, we were in the middle of a desert, but I hardly noticed it until I left the main cities to travel to other cities.

But, that's not the point. The focus is on the people of Saudi Arabia and how Americans tend to view the broader group of Middle Easterners, in general. When interacting with Middle Easterners, there is this off-standing feeling that foreigners usually receive at the beginning of any interaction. Much off the "off-standing" has fueled a notion promulgated by Americans and Europeans that Middle Easterners are mischievous and can't be trusted, causing stereotypes to abound. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

After careful study of the Middle Eastern culture, it became apparent to me that Middle Easterners give off the initial "negative" vibe because of mistrust on their end towards foreigners. With American and European industries and workers entering Middle Eastern countries at high rates to conduct business and create their own cities, it would be hard not to be mistrusting. Certainly, Americans wouldn't be too happy if foreigners created an entire city or string of cities in Anytown, USA. With those "foreign invasion" feelings constantly renting space in the minds of Middle Easterners, it is natural to be weary of foreigners and the accompanying "imperialistic" attitude.

Yet, there were many times when I was able to go beyond the initial stages of mistrust to go beneath the surface to interact with Middle Easterners. What I found were people just like Joe Brown or Susie Smith who were intelligent, cordial, ethical, opinionated, expressive, and just plain nice people with which to have a solid conversation with. It became much easier to see Saudi Arabia and – to a broader extent – the Middle Eastern region for its value. I began to see that Middle Easterners were misunderstood people who had high values for themselves and their respective countries, and were put off by the American values of, "We're going to do it our way."

Similar to how one bad apple can spoil the bunch, terrorists became the face of Middle Easterners because their stance against foreign imperialism was taken to the extreme, whereas the same people I interacted with could take their position and invoke it in a forum for healthy discussion and conversation. In other words, rather than fighting with guns and bombs, 99% of Middle Easterners choose to discuss the issues through words and conversation. As with the case with most of the foreign media that covers the Middle East, there is a tendency to sensationalize the 1% because it sells newspapers and TV shows. Yet in the process, the media has created a norm based on that fractional figure.

Wont tell you what the rest of the article was about though, as i'm far to smart to be reading that sort of thing :p

um just a little information about our government we are not a democracy we are republice with democratic tendecies and I can say that sometimes I don't like our country or the way we deal with many different aspects of our civil rights and the sterio type that we have been given and just because we are the only super power in the world doesn't mean we can attack anybody who doesn't agree with up

but thats just my 2 cents

Originally posted by jedigoku
um just a little information about our government we are not a democracy we are republice with democratic tendecies

Oh, so all these times Bush calls our country a democracy he's LYING?

:eek:

yes and every other president

Originally posted by jedigoku
um just a little information about our government we are not a democracy we are republice with democratic tendecies and I can say that sometimes I don't like our country or the way we deal with many different aspects of our civil rights and the sterio type that we have been given and just because we are the only super power in the world doesn't mean we can attack anybody who doesn't agree with up

but thats just my 2 cents

We're a democratic republic. We elect our official through (in)direct means. There isn't any true way for there to be a sucessful total democracy anyway, as people are too stupid on a general level to care.

Also, uh, use periods please. Run on sentances makes baby Jesus cry.

Originally posted by Tyrion
We're a democratic republic. We elect our official through (in)direct means. There isn't any true way for there to be a sucessful total democracy anyway, as people are too stupid on a general level to care.

Also, uh, use periods please. Run on sentances makes baby Jesus cry.

um no we are a republic by the definition of a republic and there can be true democracy so what is your point:p

Originally posted by jedigoku
um no we are a republic by the definition of a republic

It is a democractic republic. It is both a democracy and a republic.

Originally posted by jedigoku
and there can be true democracy so what is your point:p

If so then we have yet to see one.

here is the definition of a republic

Is defined by a government where authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

now does that sound firmilar

I rest my case:cool:

Originally posted by jedigoku
here is the definition of a republic

Is defined by a government where authority is derived through election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

now does that sound firmilar

I rest my case:cool:

And then, the definition from answers.com:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

But your definition is also right. So it's both a democracy and a republic.

Edit- Before Skinwalker comes in and tell us we're going off topic, I'll just say that we're going off topic and should talk more about President Bush.

The only way a true democracy would work would be if we were all part of some borg-like collective... where all our minds worked as one to come up with every decision.

Otherwise the whole country would have to come to a halt every day to read evidence and have massive referendums on every proposal/event.

That said, there are definately more democratic ways to do things than the US way. But once a system is set up you can't really change it without revolution.
Some newer countries who were alble to look at our systems and learn by our mistakes have more democratic systems.

Err... newer that the US? Would you be refering to Europe? Because we've been around for thousands of years, compared to the US hundreds. The US is the new country.

um most of the democratic governments in europe were developed after the one here in america which is probably what he/she was refering to

he/she???? :eek:

But yes, that is what i was refering to. Although the US is a much newer country than most of europe, all the democratic governments kind of sprung up around the same time so they didn't get much chance to learn from each other's mistakes.

A few of the more recent ones (due to split of soviet union, in africa, etc..) have explicitly decided to do a few things differently to the UK, US etc.. after seeing how our systems work.

Well, I don't know about the rest of Europe, but the democratic government here in England is over a century older than America (mid 17th as opposed to late 18th century). And England was not the first european country to adopt democracy (It originates in Greece in the fifth century BC, and the Netherlands adopted it in the late 16th AD).

I believe they mean "American Democracy".

Sith is right. Constitutionnal monarchy is very different then a Democratic Republic.

As such, in a Constitutionnal monarchy, the king or monarch still retains some powers as opposed to a Democratic Republic where there is no ruler. Constitutionnal monarchies have avoided such breakdowns and revolutions like the French and Russian Revolutions.

American Democracy? You mean where a guy that only half of a minority wants gets into office?

(I reckon it's safe to say that the American voting public constitutes a minority)

To be fair the first bit of british "democracy" wasn't actually that democratic... most of the power still remained with the king. It was only over time that it became truely democratic (well, as close as it got anyway).

Indeed. The people had a voice, but the King could veto anything he didn't like, even if the majority of the people want it.

I was refering to the 1650s, actually, although I agree that we have never had as good a democracy as that of Athens.

I say we follow Sweden's example. Does anyone ever remember them being in the center of or even the fringe of global controversy? We should just lay low like they do or whatever ;)

:ben:
General Kenobi

I say we follow Sweden's example. Does anyone ever remember them being in the center of or even the fringe of global controversy? We should just lay low like they do or whatever ;)

:ben:
General Kenobi

Sweden is the world leader of the coup d'йtat. Even the CIA, feared for it's ability to abolish any government it chooses, cowers in awe at the Swedes. The American Revolution? Sweden's idea. World War I? Why, of course. World War II? Hey, they needed the money. Desert Storm I and II? Well, that wasn't the Swedes doing...but the Bushes never told you the real reason of the wars was to oust out the Muslim Swedish leader...Saddam. The fact that Sweden isn't in any major controversies is a testament to their honed trickery.

:o


At least the US is a democracy. We could end up turning into Rome, where the focus is less on us and more on the political dealings of those higher up in the caste.

Which isn't to say we're not getting to that point. We're inching(and in some ways making yard passes) our way closer and closer to a dictatorship.

We could end up turning into Rome, where the focus is less on us and more on the political dealings of those higher up in the caste.

Which isn't to say we're not getting to that point. We're inching(and in some ways making yard passes) our way closer and closer to a dictatorship.

The US is already turning into that ;) Bush even make a joke on how much easier it would be for him if it were a dictatoriship. Nice thing to "joke" about huh?...lol

I had NO CLUE that Saddam was Sweedish??? He sure looks like he's from Iraq ;)

:ben:
General Kenobi

I was refering to the 1650s, actually, although I agree that we have never had as good a democracy as that of Athens.

Because Athens had a really good democracy? One with slavery? One where citizens of lower classes had no voice among the populace?
Yeah, awesome democracy.

Pure Democracies can work, but they tend to work better on the smaller scale. The bigger it gets, the harder it is to have direct elections much less direct representation ("pure democracy" is where the people make the decisions and laws, rather than hiring representatives, if I remember my Jr. high social studies).

For an example of the scale problem, imagine if the Roman Catholic Church was democratic. 1 Billion people voting for a Pope... whoa! You talk about ballot counting problems! Then again with new technologies that might be more feasible now (then again much of the world citizenry doesn't have access to computers, much less internet capable ones).

Representation and the idea of "states" are (imperfect but workable) solutions to the problems of scale in our societies.

The matter of scale is the problem that they are having with the EU.

Each member state is (braodly) democratic in electing its officials... but then how do you get those officials to work together? Make the EU process too directly democratic and people complain its taking power from member states, make it a meeting place of people designated by member governments and people claim its undemocratic.

--

Its kind of ironic that its only since the fall of communism (where an attempt to give power to the people resulted in a small ruling elite) that its become increasingly clear that capitalism has resulted in almost exactly the same thing. When we had communist dictatorships to worry about the west looked pretty rosey in comparrison, now its not looking so good. (good thing we have iraq, korea and terrorists to take our minds off it).

I was watching (of all things) the making of documentary for Resident Evil Apocalypse and i thought it was very telling that, when they attempted to explain the evil Umbrella Corporation as a bad guy, all of them (actors, producers, etc..) just took it for granted that people would understand big multinational corporations as evil, government controlling entities and that money was the driving force behind most actions and evil.
You couls almost see that sort of attitude being condemned as "unAmerican" back in the cold war.. but now very few would disagree with it. :sithk:

My point is that Athens had a true democracy (Albeit one where few got the vote), and to my knowledge, the world has not seen another true democracy since. No, I am not agreeing with slavery, which has nothing to do with democracy anyway, or denying the vote to women, but simply stating that we do not have a true democracy!

On a side note, when you say slavery, people immediately think of the oppresion of Black people at the height of the British Empire, and later, in America. When one researches it, slavery of the classical period was not nearly so bad (Although I still do not advocate slavery in any form), and slaves had some rights.

A democracy is where the power is in the hands of the people. Half the population of Athens were slaves. So say 50% remains.

Half of them are women. 25% voting population remains.

You also had to be born from athenian parents and be over 18. <20% remains

Yeah, the power was still in the hands of a certain elite.

So a democracy where over 80% of the population are not allowed to vote can truly be considered democracy?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy)

You seem to have missed my point completely. Again. I'm saying that it was far better than our current republican system in theory. If we were to adopt a true democracy, would that preclude women the vote? Automatically legalise slavery? No. And the power was still in the hands of more people than it is today. How many people would you say have power in America or Europe? And what is this as a percentage of the population? And I didn't know that slaves could not vote. They had many other rights that would not, today, be considered typical of slaves. In fact, they had more rights than your average middle ages European peasant. But this isn't a 'Classical slavery' topic. Or an 'Athenian democracy' topic, for that matter.

I'm saying that it was far better than our current republican system in theory.

No. You said this:


My point is that Athens had a true democracy

To which I reply was false, since the power was not in the hands of the people.

I then reply that it was in the hands of more people than it is today, say, 0.000000337% of the Amercan people have power. I think I'd go with ~20%, as not everyone is allowed to vote today, e.g. children, convicts, immigrants. Here in England, we didn't even have a referendum over the war in Iraq.