Why does everything HAVE to be Democracy and Does Race play a factor in our foreign Policy?

We dont actually have to colonzie land anymore to be an empire like it used to be. We can do it Economically, we are economic imperialists, u can almost say that we rule indirectly. Whats happening in Afghanistan now, who has it. Yeh they have a leader but whos really running it.

What will happen to IRAQ now, yeh they will get a leader but we will be running the things. And of course they HAVE to have a DEMOCRACY. What if Iraq doesnt want a democracy, what if they want something different, maybe they have something better than democracy. All i know is that it will cause more problems because its not Iraqi, Iraqi's didnt creat it or vote on it. They are going to be forced to have a democracy.

This is the problem africa is having, which people tend to overlook because its just AFRICA. tHE FOUNDING CIVILIZATION, everybody migrated from africa. We took away almost 500 years of their civilization and put it down the drain. They got independence in the mid late 1900's, but we made them have democracies, and we made the BORDERS, not the africans.

Another funny tidbit is we gave the Soviet Union 15 billion dollars when it fell to become a DEMOCRACY. 15 billion dollars, what the hell did we owe them for. However we have people in Africa Dying of AIDS left and right, we have people in Africa rebelling because WE CREATED THEIR BORDERS AND GOVERNMENT. We have stupid Diamond companies their like De Beers who are cutting childrens arms off. And Diamonds are the bigest CON JOB ever!!!!!!! Its freaking CARBON GUYS, CARBON. You can probably find carbon under your house. However we dont give AFRICA ENOUGH MONEY. We put them there! Another intereting thing is that if we can make borders in Europe which we did, Bosnia, Czech Republic to make people happy. We can make borders in Africa the WAY its SUPPOSED to be, AFRICAN.

[SARCASM]NOT THAT RACE PLAYS A FACTOR IN OUR FOREIGN POLICY[SARCASM]

 

I'm sorry, you're blaming America for the current political divisions in africa?


Or by 'we' do you mean 'the white man'?

Or is we instead refering to the consortioum of martian despots who rule the beta tau sector with an iron sheath over a manipulatory appendage?

This of course doesn't even begin to address some of the blatent blinders you have which, while undoubtedly helping your overblown rhetoric, ignore historical social economic, and well, real factors.

Otherwise, your rant has been logged cataloged and filed under U for unrestrained spleen venting to no real purpose.

 

farraday, it could be said that your response was nothing more than a string of "intelligent" sounding words used to make your response sound like it means something.


I admit, I'm no expert on what happens in Africa. But give the guy a chance.

 

I would try and answer every point but seeing as the questions are pretty hysterical I will just raise 2 points.

Firstly if you want to argue that American foreign policy is dictated by economic interests then you should be able to make a good case but if you insist on argueing it is based on racial prejudice then I suspect that you will struggle to find much evidence to back up your claims.

Secondly why is America (or anyone else in the west) responsible for Africa? why do we have to give them money? Is your position not racist because it implies that Africans cannot sort out Africa for themselves therefore someone else must do so?

 

This is rather dis-jointed so bear with me...

AFRICA. tHE FOUNDING CIVILIZATION, everybody migrated from africa.

Perhaps, but when this suposedly happened there was nothing approximating "civilization". I know that is really nitpicky but I had to bring it up.


We took away almost 500 years of their civilization and put it down the drain.

Um, WE (as in folks alive today) did not. This was comitted by traders and European bureaucrats who are all bones in the ground... Whether we are still participating in such an endeavour is open to argument.

However we dont give AFRICA ENOUGH MONEY. We put them there! Another intereting thing is that if we can make borders in Europe which we did, Bosnia, Czech Republic to make people happy. We can make borders in Africa the WAY its SUPPOSED to be, AFRICAN.

Two points:

1. Every person in America could empty their bank accounts into Africa, but if the leaders don't want the money going to the people, it's not going to get there.

2. Um... you just spent the first paragraph of your post talking about African borders created by Europeans were bad... and now you want to create new borders AGAIN???

 

I think the bottome line is...If you live in Africa and are not wanted their by its natives...get out...get out, now.

Its a more serious problem than alot of people realize. There are some very ticked off people in Africa right now.

 

We had a discussion about Africa a few weeks ago. One problem with Africa is indeed the borders. There are many tribal states who fight eachother for control over the other, that is why there are so many civil wars and massacres in Africa.

Now for JediHPDrummer there is a problem with what you suggest. Yes one can argue America has an economic Empire, but if you wasnt aware of it, America's economy isnt exactly in the best of shapes right now. Its no where near danger of collapse but it needs a rejuvination and bad. Secondly if America and the EU decided to give Africa all of this extra money, the only way they could effectively disperse it to the populations is to take control of the governments of Africa. That is going to lead to one bloody war, a war where half of Africa's population could be killed not to mention the US-EU servicemen. The war itself to claim Africa will take a heavy toll on the economies of both, then we have to rebuild after the war. In the end we can fix Africa, but at what cost?

Also about the borders, many African leaders dont want their borders or the borders of their neighbors fixed to better reflect culture and ethnicity. They begin to lose a grip on power with that, and Africa is full of despots wanting to cling to every last shred of power they can manage to snatch. And to remove them without them first declaring war or something that violates the UNSC will be near impossible. Look at the fuss over removing Saddam Hussein, his name will go down in history along side Hitler, Stalin, and Mao and people were out in the streets protesting any sort of unprovoked action against him.

 

If the Iraqis want communism, will the US let them have it? Or if they wanted to free themselves from a worldwide economic and social chokehold?

I didn't think so.

It's not about the Iraqis or Saddam. There are worse regimes committing worse human rights violations in the world.

It's about domination, simply an extension of "Manifest Destiny" -- not only from "sea to shining sea" but to every square inch of land (and oil!), and, more importantly, human minds.

God Bless America.

 

Just in case you were interested:

From April 29, 2003 Iraqi summit meeting:

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher:

"There are over 250 representatives here reflecting various levels of Iraqi society including intellectuals and academics tribal sheikhs, Iraqi bureaucrats and technocrats, clerics, opposition parties and former resistance leaders inside the country, and they're convening to advance the national dialogue among Iraqis regarding composition of an Iraqi interim authority."

"As President Bush had said, the United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government; that choice clearly belongs to the Iraqi people."

"Currently, the Baath Party is prohibited from taking part in the summit. This is a policy based on stabilization recommedations. If the Iraqi people finalize a religious based government, the US will not interfere."


Any comment?

But I suppose your factless rantings truly do represent the policy of the government.

 

...If you live in Africa and are not wanted their by its natives...get out...get out, now.


Does this just apply to Africa or can other places do it as well?

Or do African countries ahve some special perogitive to throw out entire groups and races? I suppose you'd be in favour then of Mugabe's tactics? And of course there are all those damn whites in South Africa who were so inconsiderate as to be born there.

After all, Africa is for *blacks!

*It can't be 'Africans' because that might include all those descendent of people who only arrived there over a hundred years ago.

 

I wish we would interfere. The last thing we need is another fundamentalist Islam state.

 

What are you talking about, another islamic state? Are you against islam or what? And did u read that we gave the soviet union 15 billion dollars! 15 billion dollars! so they can be a democracy again? did anyone catch that? Darth Carde, on why africans cant create their own borders. They just got their independences about 50 years ago, well some, south africa got independence in 1994. And Mr. Reagan was in support of south africa. Maybe because we had facotories their, we were getting the cash, and you can almost say he supported apartheid. and alos try to think, get 500 years of taking out all of your future leaders, entrepreneurs, all the great people who will move africa forward, this all happened because of slavery and racial superiority which up to the 1500;s race did not play a factor. what do u mean we dont owe them. So its ok if we give the soviets 15 billion dollars just because they fell. Finally they have an independence, and they can finally move forward, but its hard because europeans and americans left one cash crop land in africa, meaning that kenya just produced rubber trees, it takes a while to get your economy back and your resources. It's crazy that these people just received independence 50 years ago and to think that we left our government there, not african government.

 

First off, JediHPDrummer, calm down.

All right?

Now, the post above you didn't say Islam, he said fundamentalist Islam. There's a difference. I don't want to see another Saudi Arabia or a Taliban, do you? Didn't think so.

Also, perhaps Africa should be glad we stay away-look at Latin America for an example of our "helping."

 

Or do African countries ahve some special perogitive to throw out entire groups and races? I suppose you'd be in favour then of Mugabe's tactics? And of course there are all those damn whites in South Africa who were so inconsiderate as to be born there.

I recently read an article in TIME about a large group of *blacks...who are roaming the land, torturing and murdering any *white farmers or landowners they encounter.

Are there any countries such as USA or England who will be willing to go to war against these "terrorists"? No? Maybe?

What would happen if the Indians decided to take back what is rightfully theirs? Another war on American soil?

 

"And of course they HAVE to have a DEMOCRACY."


Umm, I don't think they will exactly have a democracy. I mean, America doesn't even have a democracy.

 

did anyone catch that? Darth Carde, on why africans cant create their own borders. They just got their independences about 50 years ago

If you actually opened your eyes you would see that Africans are perfectly capable of creating their own borders. They do it using guns. It is not the responsibility of the west to sort out Africa. Just because the US gave money to Russia does not mean it is obliged to do so for Africa.

well some, south africa got independence in 1994.

The only thing that happened in South Africa in 1994 was that one fundamentally racist government was replaced by another. It is true that while Nelson Mandella was in power that this wasn't the case but we are now seeing the true face of the ANC. Before anyone denounces this statement perhaps they should consider that Helen Suzman is now denounced for having legitimised the apartheid parliament while the late Kaiser Matanzima is praised, President Mbeki himself attended the funeral of Matanzima and encouraged the nation to 'continue his work'. This historical re-write is so sickening that belongs on the pages of 1984. For anyone who doesn't know, Helen Suzman was a white Liberal who was a member of the South African Parliament from 1953 to 1989. She was relentless in her campaign against apartheid and for 13 years from 1961 to 1974 she stood alone as the sole member of the South African parliament who opposed the apartheid government. Kaiser Matanzima was the leading black stooge of the apartheid regime and the despotic ruler of the black 'homeland' of Transkei.

 

i would agree with DK, anyone who attacks Suzman for legitimising the National Party is pretty crazy........
South Africa at the time claimed to be a democracy, and in a sense they were, except that all citizens needed to be white (although after 83 indians and coloureds had a say, although not as powerful as the whites)/ as such they had a parliamentary opposition, at first the United Party (i think) but thAt withered away and eventually Suzman was the only person left in parliament opposing the formal apartheid regime..........should she have stood down rather than legitimise the system? No, i think not, for several reasons.....one the government needed an opposition and there are many ways to be such, lest of all through the existing order, she was a conscience fromwithin the deemed groups..........two the current South African government exists on the same legal order as the previous regime, there has been no break in continuity, look at the current south african constitution, it is evolution not revolution, no coup, no revolution, no new order, just a new government and a negotiated constitution........if suzman is illegitimate for her association, then so is the current ANC regime for not creating a total new order as distinct from the past........

 

Is this topic even debateable?

Everything has to be a democracy because it gives people the greatest OPTION. It has it's flaws, but the factis it's the best available government. Despite what you believe about the true intentions of the American government, the majority of American PEOPLE want to create democracies because it gives people the best chance at succeeding, nothing even comes close. The point of establishing a democracy is so that if people WANT another form of government, they can elect someoen to make it that way.

See?


And race doesn't play a role in foreign policy. Move on.

 

I got a question, JediHPDrummer....are you aware that it was the EUROPEAN NATIONS that were responsible for the African slave trade?

Yes, they were..... Portugal began the African Slave Trade in the late 1400's.....Spain followed suit shortly after...France, England, Italy, and all manner of other nations followed suit, both on a private level (ie, individual people who did it on their own) and under government charters (ie, England, where the Crown of England recieved a commission on Slave trades)....the Catholic Church condoned the African Slave trade as well.

So are you up for holding these nations, in many cases, whom had been doing the slave trade for nearly 300 years BEFORE the United States was even founded? Or is this one of those things where it is only applicable towards the United States?

 

To add to TripleB's points, slavery in Europe and the Americas was probably better than slavery in Africa. The white man didn't raid and pillage African villages - the other Africans did that. They sold members of other tribes to the European and Islamic traders. If there are going to be reparations for slavery . . . then everyone in the whole dang world should pay them.

 

If there are going to be reparations for slavery . . . then everyone in the whole dang world should pay them.

Well lets, see.... I think 1stAD said it best once on the reparations issue. He was of asian decent, who's family lineage would have had absolutely ZERO percent chance of ever having any involvement with the African Slave Trade. So what exactly was his nation or ancestors role in that? If we are going to talk about a 'Collective' responsibility, then why is England, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Catholic Church, and company being exempted from the 'resonsibility' part, unless this is just another 'blame america' attempt.

 

Another funny tidbit is we gave the Soviet Union 15 billion dollars when it fell to become a DEMOCRACY. 15 billion dollars, what the hell did we owe them for.

Id also like to add a comment to this. Yes the US gave the Soviet Union billions of dollars after the collapse of communism. This was directly in the intrest of not only the United States but the entire world as well. That 15 billion probably went a long way to keep police stations operational, and keep rioting from erupting in the streets. Russia has a hard enough time keeping its nukes locked up, imagine that with rioting in Leningrad and Moscow, nuclear weapons are reported missing throughout Russia, and suddenly terrorist organizations are easily able to aquire nuclear weapons, September 11 would look like a day at the park. Nuclear detonations in New York, Paris and London doesnt exactly appeal to me, nor the US government, and I do wonder if the UK and France as well as other western nations contributed to this as well.

 

It seems near impossible to have a rational deabte about the slave trade with out hearing about the 'evil' white man. The facts are that long before European's became involved African leaders were selling their own people as slaves mainly to the Arab world. When the Europeans arrived in Africa they linked up with the African leaders and expanded the slave trade. African leaders were happy about this. Then Britain decided that the salve trade was immoral and not only stopped trading in slaves but decided that to stop everyone else from doing so. For many years one of the main roles of the Royal Navy was to prevent all shipping of slaves. Several African governments lodged formal protests with Britain over this course of action.

and I do wonder if the UK and France as well as other western nations contributed to this as well.

I am fairly certain that the UK gave a considerable amount of aid to Russia.

 

DK, I believe it was the French that were hte first to summarily grant freedom (and citizenship) to their slaves before Great Britain.

It should be noted that on their own, Spain never actually freed their slaves. It was the uprisings in the New World that saw their slaves free themselves, but left to their own devices, the Crown of Spain never actually did it on their own. Same with Portugal. And, like I noted previously, the Catholic Church does have blame to carry in this.

I can make the claim now that when England granted charters to slavers in the 1500's up untill the 1800's, that this means commissions from that passed from the Slavers to the Crown. As such, it could be said that the House of Windsor has money in its coffers that came from the Slave Trade. As Slave Reparation activists claim, there are companys in the United States that profited on slavery, which means we have to apply it wherever we can.

 

TripleB: I was just looking at your sig and, out of curiosity, who is "G.P. Bush"?

Anyway, to the topic(s) at hand:

First of all, I think that this thread should be split in two. One thread addressing the "Why does everything HAVE to be Democracy" part and the other "Does Race play a factor in our foreign Policy?" I don't see any connection between the two to warrant their sharing of one thread.

Second of all, I know nothing about African politics. Sorry. All I really know is that the white man screwed Africa over, just like he screwed every other continent over.

Third of all, about this whole democracy thing: I agree. I don't think that democracy is mandatory for every country. Just because we like it doesn't mean they will. Who are we to tell them how their government should be? And I certainly do NOT think that the United States should go around kicking out governments we don't like, and replacing them with ones or forms of our choosing. It's not our place. It's not our right nor is it our responsibility. Nowhere in the Constitution of this country nor those of others does it give us that kind of power. Democracy forced is not democracy.

By the way, we should define exactly WHAT democracy is. Democracy, simply, is power from the people. That means that the leader(s) are voted in by the majority. Yes, yes, I KNOW that the strict definition of democracy would be for everyone to vote on the issues. But I believe that most dictionaries expand the definitions to include indirect democracy (like the U.S.) where the people don't vote themselves, but vote for the people who do set policy.

Now, does that mean that Saddam Hussein's regime could have been a democracy? Of course. Had he been voted by a majority, his government, no matter how brutal or repressive, would have been a democracy! And, you know what, he WAS voted in by a majority - a 100% majority! Sure, it was probably illegitimate, but hey, George W. Bush's victory was illegitimate too, and he's still in power! It's also important to know that Adolf Hitler's regime was a democracy, because he commanded popular support. We usually don't think of Hitler that way, but technically, it's true.

Well, anyway, I'm getting off-topic. My point is that what kind of government comes to fruition in each country is up to whoever is in that country, and not up to us. But if you really think about it, with the exception of governments like Saddam Hussein's, most governments are and were democracies, even the monarchies of old, because the people let the governments sit in power. It was the PEOPLE that could make or break them. That is true democracy - something that even we Americans don't necessarily have today.