The Real Humanists

[Civic_Zen]

Victor is the man.

[cosmo]

Re: The Real Humanists

American military efforts have in fact broken down democratic regimes in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Try a search on the political history of the ?Sandinistas? in El Salvador, and you?ll see. You know why? They were socialist democracies. Parallel with this, the US and Europe have supported many dictatorial and authoritarian regimes in Latin-America and Africa, for the single reason that they could extract the natural resources from these countries and only had to pay the ?Big Man? for it. He got rich, and they took it away practically for free. Victor Hanson appears to be forgetting the other side of the story here, and neglects the fact that invasions have never ever occurred out of compassion: there is always a motive, be it political or economical.

The Sandinistas were communists. And the electorate in those central american countries today are better off now that we removed those elements in the 80's. Are you going to sit here and deny that? That's utter nonsense. Socialist isn't the correct term. Let's try 'communist'. How can anyone think that the central american countries are worse off than they were in the 80's?

The ?domino-effect? of Iraq becoming a democracy is not quite true here I think. Iraq was already politically isolated: it wasn?t an integral part of Middle East politics anymore, although there were still many connections, also unofficial ones. Also, the cases of Argentina and Iberia (Portugal & Spain) are different: those countries had an ?extension? to their countries, which required financial and material input from the motherland to sustain, and generated income through export of natural resources and the provision of lcheap abour forces.

The collapse of those extensions was like cutting off a limb, a big one. Maybe even like decapitation.
Iraq is one political body, not part of a colonial structure, and therefore it?s fall is not likely to affect the surrounding countries as much as this paper would have you believe.

It's becoming more apparent every day that Iraq needed to be stabilized and taken care of. Saddam was paying off other countries and was slowly deteriorating the sanctions in order to re-start his weapons programs. The testimony is there. Saddam was a figure that needed to be removed for greater peace in the region of the middle-east. Oil for food funds consistently funded terror organizations. Saddam funded anti-American and anti-Jewish groups throughout the region. Billions of dollars were funding terror camps and hatred around the world. It's irrefutable. The Iranian people are starting to stand up by seeing 2 of the worst regimes in the world collapse under our power, spreading hope that elections and freedom are the future for the middle-east. It has nothing to do with being 'politically isolated'.

And here we go again, Linking Saddam with Al-Qu?aida. Osama has clearly pointed out that Afghanistan and later on, Palestine were his main inspirators, Not Saddam.
Altering the very landscape in which the enemies of the US operated: creating a situation in which the US has a military and strategic advantage over the Muslim states and Northern Korea, alltogether considered to be only out for the destruction of the US.
Maybe, just very maybe, these states just want to be granted the freedom to do things the way they like. I don?t believe for a second that their sole purpose of being is the destruction and annihilation of the good ?ole US of A.
Iran and Korea trying to develop Nukes is a reaction to the threats being made of an invasion in those countries. They didn?t start doing that until at some point the possibility of military actions had been mentioned. It?s a self-fulfilling prohpecy like this.
How do you scare off a superpower? Not by waving an AK-47?you?ll have to come up with something bigger.

Osama has already proven that underground actions are way more effective than building nukes to hit a big country like yours. Terrorism to kill, nukes to scare.

Bush wants to set the conditions for the war he thinks is going to be fought, but he?s already at war, and so the conditions are already set. A dead argument.

Guess who else wanted freedom for Palestine? Yes, you're correct. Saddam. As I stated above, the intentions were there. Saddam had a plan, and if you think that the world is better off with him in power you are out of your mind. Don't you understand? In order to minimize the threat of terrorism, you have to take the power away from the terrorists and fascistic dictators who have control, and give it to the groups that condemns this hatred. It's really not that hard to understand. Iran is not just building a nuclear weapon for the fear of being invaded. That's absurd.

Castro is a regular guest in Iran, and he along with the mullahs preach for the destruction of Israel and America. It seems to me that you do not see the moral distinction between America, and Iran, North Korea, etc. That's your mistake. The far left thinks politically and economically in times of war, not morally. For example: The terrorists are the way they are because they live in poverty. Not because they are actually fascistic. Ya see? These dictators are no different than Hitler. Just as Hitler and Chamberlain signed the treaty of peace, you will never acheive these same goals with rulers with this type of mindset. They are hell-bent on gaining more influence and power.

Nothing has changed.

Dissidents? Well well, I hadn?t noticed that the US had become a one-party / one-ideology state? Hanson should be very careful about his choice of words here. This would implicate that anyone that is against the war in Iraq, or doesn?t agree with they things are handled now would be a traitor to the US, an enemy of the state. Last time I remember it was China dealing with ?dissidents? , not the US. That was supposed to be a free country.
For my fellow democratic or anti Iraq-war US forum dwellers: this guy thinks you?re very unpatriotic. Very.

No, you're just putting words into his mouth.

?America is not propping up despotism anymore??yes it is Mr. Hanson. As long as the US has an economical advantage by doing so, they will. Know ya history.
If you really want to remove all dictatorships, theocracies and moderate autocracies (not-so-bad dictatorships or illiberal democracies), you?ll have quite some work laying ahead of you. What a fantasy?the only ones that will be removed are the ones that pose a direct threat to America?s political or economical interests. And don?t give me that bullshit about WWII: the US saw Hitler as a threat, both military and economically. Imagine the Third Reich as Hitler saw it: that would be an economical and military giant, unstoppable.

Carter is indeed a na?eve, good-willing man. His presence is more symbolical than effective, wherever he goes.

Show me a state on this earth that Bush has praised in terms of being a great nation(that is fascistic). You can't. Bush is determined to put pressure on states that are oppressors. He may not have enough time to pressure every single country, but he can be a great motivator for future presidents. Your logic is extremely flawed. Bush is determined to destroy the islamic powers that do not represent individualism. Watch what happens over the next 4 years.

btw, Carter is a joke. You do know that he was the first one to PROP up an islamic fundamentalist government in the middle east. Thanks to him islamic fundamentalism flourished.

By all that Mr. Hanson has said before, supporting the thought that the US should tell countries what the right way of governing is (democracy) and go into countries he considers a threat to his way of life to teach them the ropes, he himself qualifies as a fascist himself. He is no better than the Muslim extremists he dispises so.

This battle is not decided by the bravery and skills of 20-something American soldiers: your technological advantage will guarantee the outcome.
And yes, towards the soldiers (boys younger than I am sometimes) this is an arrogant statement: I do not dare to question their zeal, their efforts to bring to the Iraqi?s what they think is right. I just dissaprove of the ideology they advocate.
I hope that someday I?ll have the courage to go to places like that to find out myself what the real story is and bring it to people out here.

Does Bush go into southern African countries threatening them to invade, or does he just deal with countries that are threats to us? There is a difference. Hopefully you will be able to make that distinction.

America as the new, young good force in the world, with a fresh view that is unquestionably right, and Europe as the old lady that doesn?t accept her beauty of bygone days has faded away? That is put too bluntly, although the UN could certainly use some more ?American spirit? in it.
Phantom Menace once called it ?a Euro cocktail with a splash of balls?.

There is one thing Hanson overlooks: Europe is not weak in it?s view on things, but it has a political, and more important, a colonial history that is way older than the US. In fact, the US doesn?t have a real colonial history: the US has never been a colonizer. But this part of history influences the way of dealing with and looking at other cultures. I don?t know how to make this clear to you, but over here people are raised and tought a bit different when it comes to other cultures. This does not mean I think that Americans don?t know shit about other cultures and aren?t tolerant.
I?m talking about politics here: our political systems are drenched with the legacies of former colonies, and this chapter in our history has forced us to develop view and policies on a different basis thatn countries that do not have such a history. The colonizers have learned the hard way that blunt imposing of norms and values on another culture is a no-go. We?ve had our asses kicked over that about half a century ago. And we?re still dealing with it.
It?s hard to explain, but I hope you get my point.

What has Europe done over the past century that makes you believe they are capable of doing ANYTHING? Give me a break. That's laughable.

hahahaha I'm done here.

[cosmo]

Re: The Real Humanists

Hey Cosmo, nice to see you back with us!

The thing with the road map is that is promised an independant viable Palestinian state by 2005, free from Israeli occupation. However, to achieve this the PA had one main goal, disband the terror organisations in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thats it. Thats all they had to do.

Israel had other requirements placed upon it in the framework of the Roadmap, some of these things she achieved and some she didn't.

Naturally Israel refused to meet all its criteria until the PA and Arafat started work on the one thing they had to do. Maybe Arafat couldn't break up terror organisations, or more likely didn't want to, either way both parties neglected the Roadmap and it should now be thrown in the trash with all the other dead plans!

I do blame Arafat for the Roadmap failing. I blame Arafat for our two countries still being at loggerheads, I blame Arafat for throwing away the chance for peace that Barak made, and most of all I blame Arafat for enabling Ariel Sharon to be elected Prime Minister of my country.

That said, if Sharon keeps to his word, like it looks like he will, and withdraws from all of the Gaza Strip and some of the West Bank, then the intentions of the Roadmap can still be achieved.

As for Abbas; As he is not tainted with blood like Arafat, as he is a realist unlike Arafat and as it seems he cares more about his people then lining the his own pockets, I am prepared to take him on face value and hope finally we might have a partner for peace!

Excellent! Good to be back.. Let's hope that everything works out. There is a monumental chance here to do something about the situation. I hear that there are rogue elements doing everything they can to kill the PA.

Yea - Arafat was offered everything he asked for from Barak and Clinton and still bailed out. Just goes to show you he would easily throw up the peace sign and preach about a solution while in the same breath shout for the destruction of Israel.

2-faced animal. And to see him praised throughout the media = BARF.

[Yao]

Re: The Real Humanists

I see we have a new hard-line republican on the board again...nice to meet you Cosmo. I'm pretty sure we'll never agree on any of the points, but hey...we can always try to convince each other. Right? :wink:

The Sandinistas were communists. And the electorate in those central american countries today are better off now that we removed those elements in the 80's. Are you going to sit here and deny that? That's utter nonsense. Socialist isn't the correct term. Let's try 'communist'. How can anyone think that the central american countries are worse off than they were in the 80's?

No, the Sandinistas were socialists. Lenin and Stalin were Commies. They have been baptized communists in a time where simplicity in politics was favourable - The Cold war. And even if they were...they came into office in democratic elections. The CIA has done everything to remove them from power, not because they were autocratic, but for the sole reason that the US thought they had the wrong ideology. How's that for arrogance?

"We want the world to be free and democratic, but only if the democratically chosen regimes are capitalistic. If not, we will also replace those regimes."
The US has clearly shown it's real intentions in doing this. What a farce.

The fact that the electorate in Latin-America is better of is not the consequence of America's policies. Democracy is still young out there and very fragile, but people have had enough of military regimes fucking things up. They really want democracy to work, and that's why it's probably gonna last in L-A.

It's becoming more apparent every day that Iraq needed to be stabilized and taken care of. Saddam was paying off other countries and was slowly deteriorating the sanctions in order to re-start his weapons programs. The testimony is there. Saddam was a figure that needed to be removed for greater peace in the region of the middle-east. Oil for food funds consistently funded terror organizations. Saddam funded anti-American and anti-Jewish groups throughout the region. Billions of dollars were funding terror camps and hatred around the world. It's irrefutable. The Iranian people are starting to stand up by seeing 2 of the worst regimes in the world collapse under our power, spreading hope that elections and freedom are the future for the middle-east. It has nothing to do with being 'politically isolated'.

I've already stated before (man I'm tired of repeating all this stuff) That the oil-for-food programme was the stupidest thing to do for the UN. I agree with that.
But show me the testimony from Saddam, because I haven't read or heard anything about that.
Maybe Iraq needed to be 'stabilized' (what a euphemism), maybe not. The situation is as is, but I seriously doubt that this will instigate democratic processes where there is not already a basis formed in the society. In Iran the democratic process is already going on, though slowly. In Arabia it isn't going to happen. The support for democracy among the people is still too small there. Maybe in 50 years or so, we'll see changes starting to take place.

Furthermore: Iran has stopped enriching Uranium. Wanna know wo got them to do that?

Germany, France and Great Britain.

No shooting or invading involved. And now they'll probably have to try and convince Bush to shut the fuck up about invasions and stuff, otherwise they will start enriching it again, I swear...

Guess who else wanted freedom for Palestine? Yes, you're correct. Saddam. As I stated above, the intentions were there. Saddam had a plan, and if you think that the world is better off with him in power you are out of your mind. Don't you understand? In order to minimize the threat of terrorism, you have to take the power away from the terrorists and fascistic dictators who have control, and give it to the groups that condemns this hatred. It's really not that hard to understand. Iran is not just building a nuclear weapon for the fear of being invaded. That's absurd.

Wow, stop it right there. I've never ever in my life said that Saddam in power was a good thing. The man is pure evil. Don't put words in my mouth.

And I still maintain my view that Iran was not building nuclear weapons to attack. But we'll never know until they say it in our faces.

Castro is a regular guest in Iran, and he along with the mullahs preach for the destruction of Israel and America. It seems to me that you do not see the moral distinction between America, and Iran, North Korea, etc. That's your mistake. The far left thinks politically and economically in times of war, not morally. For example: The terrorists are the way they are because they live in poverty. Not because they are actually fascistic. Ya see? These dictators are no different than Hitler. Just as Hitler and Chamberlain signed the treaty of peace, you will never acheive these same goals with rulers with this type of mindset. They are hell-bent on gaining more influence and power.

Nothing has changed.

There is a moral distiction, and I do see it. And 'the far left' (I do not consider myself left, centre, right or wrong) is not saying that they are what they are because they're poor. I do not think people are only victims of the circumstances, but I do think you should expand the possibilities for people to makes choices. And the most important thing to do that is education. A lack of education makes people receptive to influences from outside, in this case literate extremists.

I am not left-leaning, I try to be realistic and find long-term solutions to the problems of present day, ok? Please don't put a tag on me.

No, you're just putting words into his mouth.

Maybe, but as far as I know the word 'dissidents' is not used in any democracy where free speech is a constitutional right. It has a very negative load, and equals the word criminal, only in a political context.

Show me a state on this earth that Bush has praised in terms of being a great nation(that is fascistic). You can't. Bush is determined to put pressure on states that are oppressors. He may not have enough time to pressure every single country, but he can be a great motivator for future presidents. Your logic is extremely flawed. Bush is determined to destroy the islamic powers that do not represent individualism. Watch what happens over the next 4 years.

btw, Carter is a joke. You do know that he was the first one to PROP up an islamic fundamentalist government in the middle east. Thanks to him islamic fundamentalism flourished.

Don't be so na?ve Cosmo. Of course Bush would never praise any of those states. But he will profit from the situation (as would any other president, this is not a policy invented by him).

Bush may not like the way Islamic states are ruled, but man, he's trying to do the same thing!! Islamic states are not secular (Turkey being the exception), but he's not respecting the division between religion and state himself either, is he? There is no way you can defend this IMO.
On political level, he's not representing individualism himself: there should be room for other political systems in this world, wether he likes it or not.
He doesn't have to accept any attacks on the US and it's citizens but: the war on terrorism is one thing, attacking other ideologies and their adepts another.

Does Bush go into southern African countries threatening them to invade, or does he just deal with countries that are threats to us? There is a difference. Hopefully you will be able to make that distinction.

Don't worry, I can. But he's the one threatening countries that didn't pose a threat to the US.

What has Europe done over the past century that makes you believe they are capable of doing ANYTHING? Give me a break. That's laughable.

hahahaha I'm done here.

You don't know the half of it, my friend. But it's a bit more subtle than the achievements of the US. We don't have a record with military battles won, because that's not our way of making politics. And I know, you're gonna go round the board screaming "See? See? Nothing, nothing!!". But then let me ask you: what has the US done to promote the development of African and Latin-American countries other than using military force?

And you could of course answer that the US spends more money than any other country on development. But then I say:

You say the US is the number one aid benefactor of the world: in absolute terms, maybe. But more than 50% of your aid consists of military equipment, not financial resources or (technical) knowledge to strengthen economies. The Netherlands pay up to 0.81% of GDP to aid, the US no more than 0.14%. So per capita we pay a lot more than you. You may pay the most in absolute terms, but we have a bigger financial burden per capita to carry here...European countries may not be the first ones to support military action, but they are generally (not always) accepted more because they advocate long-term development.

Taken from another thread, and I don't want to write the same thing twice...

http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?highlight=us+development&t=2568

You see? America works top-down in it's efforts to change things for the better, Europe works bottom-up. Just a difference of approach, and one very visible and assertive, the other invisible and passive.
The latter one, however, will generate longer lasting results IMO.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion may be: I don't hate you man. I love discussing this shit. Peace.

Now go flame me again

[cosmo]

Re: The Real Humanists

No, the Sandinistas were socialists. Lenin and Stalin were Commies. They have been baptized communists in a time where simplicity in politics was favourable - The Cold war. And even if they were...they came into office in democratic elections. The CIA has done everything to remove them from power, not because they were autocratic, but for the sole reason that the US thought they had the wrong ideology. How's that for arrogance?

Again, the Sandinistas were communists, controlled by the USSR and Cuba, and were meant to express a slight socialist image, but were indeed communist. We went into central America to beat down soviet expansionism. That was the only reason. Granted, we did make many mistakes, but the logic of dumbing down an evil ideology isn't necessarily arrogant.

I've already stated before (man I'm tired of repeating all this stuff) That the oil-for-food programme was the stupidest thing to do for the UN. I agree with that.
But show me the testimony from Saddam, because I haven't read or heard anything about that.
Maybe Iraq needed to be 'stabilized' (what a euphemism), maybe not. The situation is as is, but I seriously doubt that this will instigate democratic processes where there is not already a basis formed in the society. In Iran the democratic process is already going on, though slowly. In Arabia it isn't going to happen. The support for democracy among the people is still too small there. Maybe in 50 years or so, we'll see changes starting to take place.

Furthermore: Iran has stopped enriching Uranium. Wanna know wo got them to do that?

Germany, France and Great Britain.

No shooting or invading involved. And now they'll probably have to try and convince Bush to shut the fuck up about invasions and stuff, otherwise they will start enriching it again, I swear...

Your view of a democratic middle-east is pessimistic at its core, just as many of the so called intellectual elites who thought that we couldn't make it as far as we have now. Do I need to make a list of what was to have happened if we were to go into Afghanistan and Iraq? Afghanistan has had it's first election in 5,000 years. Democracy is moving forward there, why can't it happen in Iraq? Saudi Arabia, not 'Arabia' btw, is in the middle of a civil war. Fifty percent of their populous support Bin laden(who is supposedly for their freedom ), and 50 percent support the current fascistic monarchy. The women are enslaved and animals are treated much better than them. Their culture will start to collapse as soon as these democratic nations start to flourish. Give it time.

And if you think Iran has stopped enriching uranium, think again. They are pulling out all stops in order to have their first nuclear weapon.

Don't fool yourself.

There is a moral distiction, and I do see it. And 'the far left' (I do not consider myself left, centre, right or wrong) is not saying that they are what they are because they're poor. I do not think people are only victims of the circumstances, but I do think you should expand the possibilities for people to makes choices. And the most important thing to do that is education. A lack of education makes people receptive to influences from outside, in this case literate extremists.

I am not left-leaning, I try to be realistic and find long-term solutions to the problems of present day, ok? Please don't put a tag on me.

From what I'm reading from you, it seems that you need to start reading something other than the conspiracy American imperialist propoganda.

Maybe, but as far as I know the word 'dissidents' is not used in any democracy where free speech is a constitutional right. It has a very negative load, and equals the word criminal, only in a political context.

A dissident is someone who disagrees. I think it's safe to use it in the manner that he did. Lighten up.

Don't be so na?ve Cosmo. Of course Bush would never praise any of those states. But he will profit from the situation (as would any other president, this is not a policy invented by him).

Bush may not like the way Islamic states are ruled, but man, he's trying to do the same thing!! Islamic states are not secular (Turkey being the exception), but he's not respecting the division between religion and state himself either, is he? There is no way you can defend this IMO.
On political level, he's not representing individualism himself: there should be room for other political systems in this world, wether he likes it or not.
He doesn't have to accept any attacks on the US and it's citizens but: the war on terrorism is one thing, attacking other ideologies and their adepts another.

There you go again, with the profits and imperialism. I know this isn't a policy created by him. It was created by the founders of this great country, who fled Europe to find land where they could express religious freedom, and freedom of expression. They wanted the power in the hands of the people. Of course, think tanks in the Pentagon did alot of the thinking and the planning, but freedom and individualism is at the core of the vision.

I can defend this all day long. The middle east is past due in terms of needing democratic change. Look at the despots, and all of the 7th century tyrants that are oppressing their citizens. Their way of life is affecting ours, and most of Europes.

Their ideology is our problem now.

You don't know the half of it, my friend. But it's a bit more subtle than the achievements of the US. We don't have a record with military battles won, because that's not our way of making politics. And I know, you're gonna go round the board screaming "See? See? Nothing, nothing!!". But then let me ask you: what has the US done to promote the development of African and Latin-American countries other than using military force?

And you could of course answer that the US spends more money than any other country on development. But then I say:

You say the US is the number one aid benefactor of the world: in absolute terms, maybe. But more than 50% of your aid consists of military equipment, not financial resources or (technical) knowledge to strengthen economies. The Netherlands pay up to 0.81% of GDP to aid, the US no more than 0.14%. So per capita we pay a lot more than you. You may pay the most in absolute terms, but we have a bigger financial burden per capita to carry here...European countries may not be the first ones to support military action, but they are generally (not always) accepted more because they advocate long-term development.

Taken from another thread, and I don't want to write the same thing twice...

http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?highlight=us+development&t=2568

You see? America works top-down in it's efforts to change things for the better, Europe works bottom-up. Just a difference of approach, and one very visible and assertive, the other invisible and passive.
The latter one, however, will generate longer lasting results IMO.

Europe works from the bottom up? You mean they continually flood the coffers of the despotic regimes we are trying to replace. Yea, that really does some good, doesn't it? How much did we fund Arafat? Only to see him rape and brainwash his own people? How much do we actually give the poor countries in Africa, only to be misused by the dictators throughout that poor continent? Bush just donated 15b(which I disagreed with) a couple years ago to Africa in order to help the AIDS victims. I wonder how much money will go to the people? Give me a break Yao. That's ridiculous. There has been report after report filed showing that the money is stolen and used for other things.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion may be: I don't hate you man. I love discussing this shit. Peace.

Cool I do too.

Now go flame me again

Okay.

[Yao]

1 The Sandinistas-issue: has it ever occured to you that given that fact that the US removed that regime because of the fight against communism, it may have named the Sandinistas communists? B'cuz in Europe they definitely ain't called red commies.

Matter of difference in writing down history I guess...

2 I'm not really pessimistic, just being realistic. There is a few countries that may slowly be moving towards democracy, or at least the society is becoming incleasingly free, but the core is hard and unmoving as ever.
Iran has indeed resumed enriching Uranium, under the promise to subject itself to monitoring from the EU.
There's also talks going on now to provide Iran with a slighly different kind of nucleat technology wich is fit for energy-generating purposes, but unfit for militay purposes. I've forgotten the name of that echnology, will look it up.

3 I'll be fucked if I'm gonna be some conspiray American imperialism whining lefty: I just disagree with their policies.

This kind of labelling annoys me, it's a very easy way of discarding otherone's opinion. You don't see me doing that either, do you?
I know you're probably a republican, given your support for the current American policies, but I haven't used this to discard what you've stated so far, have I?

4 It's not the ideology as a whole, it's a rotten part of it's believers.

5 Corruption is indeed the weak point when it comes to financial aid. Even NGO's are subject to that. But that does not mean we have to go crashing down with guns & ammo when we want to change things IMO. It's tempting, yes, but I wouldn't.

You may also have noticed that there have also been successes, maybe not eclatant, but on a modest scale. Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana, Mali, until recently Ivory Coast, Senegal/The Gambia. Countries hat are democratic , and dealing with corruption.
Ivory Coast is really a dissapointment, until 2 years ago or so it was still economically and politically among the most stable countries in Africa.

In case you haven't noticed yet: I'm not all for the European way, I'm not all for the American way. I'd like to see some politics with balls and a moderated use of military force. Meet in the middle, think in grey shades, not in black or white.

[neur0t0xin64]

Re: The Real Humanists

Well written article. I REALLY hope it plays out that way. Whether it does or not the USA and democracy will overcome the tyranny of the ignorance embracing extremists.

[cosmo]

Re: The Real Humanists

1 The Sandinistas-issue: has it ever occured to you that given that fact that the US removed that regime because of the fight against communism, it may have named the Sandinistas communists? B'cuz in Europe they definitely ain't called red commies.

Matter of difference in writing down history I guess...

It's a fact. The Sandinistas, and the other guerilla factions throughout El Salvador and Nicauragua were marxist and were being funded by communist countries that had the same ideology as them. What would you call that? You called Lenin a commie. These marxist guerillas are no different. Che Guevera, he was a marxist commie that collaborated with Castro. They were all interconnected and had the same vision.

And for some reason the lefties throughout America are wearing Che shirts. I'm dumbfounded to say the least.

2 I'm not really pessimistic, just being realistic. There is a few countries that may slowly be moving towards democracy, or at least the society is becoming incleasingly free, but the core is hard and unmoving as ever.
Iran has indeed resumed enriching Uranium, under the promise to subject itself to monitoring from the EU.
There's also talks going on now to provide Iran with a slighly different kind of nucleat technology wich is fit for energy-generating purposes, but unfit for militay purposes. I've forgotten the name of that echnology, will look it up.

Do you really think the fundamentalist regime will live up to its promises? Really. Why did they even start up their program in the first place? These fascistic mullahs don't care what the EU thinks. And why would a country that has huge oil fields, the 3rd largest in the world, need a nuclear power plant? Answer: They have a goal, and they are pulling out all stops in acheiving that goal.

3 I'll be fucked if I'm gonna be some conspiray American imperialism whining lefty: I just disagree with their policies.

This kind of labelling annoys me, it's a very easy way of discarding otherone's opinion. You don't see me doing that either, do you?
I know you're probably a republican, given your support for the current American policies, but I haven't used this to discard what you've stated so far, have I?

I'm labeling you that mainly because you are preaching the talking points that come straight from the left on these issues. I'm not discarding your opinions by the way, I'm confronting them with irrefutable evidence and common-sense logic. You made a statement earlier that had mentioned that America wants to take down communist and socialist countries that do not agree with them to prop up regimes that do. We ONLY take out regimes that are threats to us and our friends and neighbors. I see nothing wrong with that.

4 It's not the ideology as a whole, it's a rotten part of it's believers.

Show me a country that we are confronting that doesn't involve a fascist dictator, a country that doesn't sponsor terror, or a country that doesn't contain this fascist mindset that preaches hatred against us. The whole area is a sewer of this 7th century behavior.

5 Corruption is indeed the weak point when it comes to financial aid. Even NGO's are subject to that. But that does not mean we have to go crashing down with guns & ammo when we want to change things IMO. It's tempting, yes, but I wouldn't.

You may also have noticed that there have also been successes, maybe not eclatant, but on a modest scale. Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana, Mali, until recently Ivory Coast, Senegal/The Gambia. Countries hat are democratic , and dealing with corruption.
Ivory Coast is really a dissapointment, until 2 years ago or so it was still economically and politically among the most stable countries in Africa.

In case you haven't noticed yet: I'm not all for the European way, I'm not all for the American way. I'd like to see some politics with balls and a moderated use of military force. Meet in the middle, think in grey shades, not in black or white.

Are we using our military in regards to confronting the humanitarian problems in Africa? Moderated military force? Wha?

The European way is the same old, re-hashed nonsense. Politics with balls?

Laughable.

[Yao]

Well, if everything I say is 'laughable' to you, then I don't see the point in reacting to your poasts anymore, sorry mate. I can't have a discussion this way, my thoughts being labelled as 'laughable' all the way.

Finito.

[cosmo]

Well, if everything I say is 'laughable' to you, then I don't see the point in reacting to your poasts anymore, sorry mate. I can't have a discussion this way, my thoughts being labelled as 'laughable' all the way.

Finito.

I can't help but laugh though, no offense man. But telling me that the EU cares more about the people of Africa than America, when they say nothing when ethnic cleansing is taking place is absurd.

America stepped up to the plate, as we always do. And we are always looked down upon by the European elite.

This has been happening since the 17th century. It's nothing new.

[Yao]

Yeah, but the thing that irritates me is that ypu really think that Europeans look down on you. Maybe others do, I don't.

And there's no way I have ever said that Europe cares more for Africa than America.
America steps up the plate, that is your way of dealing with problems. We do it differently, and we have our own successes and failures. The problem is that in our case it's harder to prove that we're really getting somewhere, you know?

And I think I've already shown that I am well aware of the mistakes on our side, especially when it comes to the UN.

But you keep insisting on generalising like that, and I just can't fight against that. It seems you have a picture in mind about me as seeing America as inferior or something, on moral grounds. I disgree with the American way of solving problems, but that doesn't ean my solutions are good all the way. Every approach has it's stong points and flaws.

I look down on nobody. Not on you, not on China, not on Africa. There's always a motivation or reason people to do things differently than I do, who am I to judge that?

But I feel like I'm getting judged without the judge knowing me, and that's wat really annoys me. I get from your last post that you don't mean any disrespect, but please keep in mind I also don't mean any of that to you either, ok?