By no stretch of our language does "free" mean "cared for." Public health care is a great idea that is good for the people and for the country as a whole, but it is not a freedom. Freedom is the ability to light up a cigarette, not the doctor taking it away from you.
Oh that's cute. What you're saying is that you can have a 'free' country where everything required for life is priced beyond the average person's reach, but it's still somehow 'free' because you've matched up some tiny aspect of the state with your dictionary definition of 'free'. If I lived in such a society, I would be 'free' go out and try to earn an higher than average wage to then spend on some bare necessities, but of course, even if I'm successful, that doesn't make things different for the majority of people at or below the average wage, does it. Freedom has to be actually in reach, not some abstract hypothetical freedom that the rich can sit around and ponder while everyone else starves etc.
1: It wasn't illegal. (See above.) The UN never passed a resolution forbidding or condemning the invasion, and the first Iraq war ended with a peace treaty, which Saddam repeatedly violated. The invasion was one of choice, was sold on a lie, and is a distraction from the War on Terror as well as a generally bad idea -- but it's perfectly legal.
The UN is not the authority here. The Nuremberg trials established that the type of war the US is fighting in Iraq is an illegal war of aggression. There is simply no basis, in international law or in precedent, for invading a country for pre-emptive 'defense'. And as you've pointed out yourself, the WOMD claims were lies. But worse than that, they were intentional fabrications. In my books, that makes the whole escapade illegal. Even droppping the WOMD excuse and moving to regime change... that's simply not legal either.
2: Iraq had WMDs. He used them on the Iranians and the Kurds. By the best accounts I've heard, Saddam thought that Iraq had WMDs.
Yes and they were handed to him by the US. And they stuck around to see what happened too. The CIA oversaw their testing on the Kurds. That's why no-one wanted to try him for these attrocities... because the US was up to it's eyeballs in the whole thing. Also keep in mind that the US and and Israel have been caught using WOMD in Iraq and Lebanon. The old 'do as we say, not as we do', eh?
3: Show me a poll, and let's check for bias. There's no regulation of polling in the United States, so "push polls" are common. Don't trust any number you hear where you don't see the question asked.
No. The judiciary order the recount to stop. I don't need to show you any polls. That simple act says it all. Even discounting the massive difference between exit polls and the official tally, you simply can't order an end to counting votes, and then in the next breath say that you're in a democracy.
What exactly do you think Democracy is for? It's to let the people change their government without killing anybody.
In the US, it's to put a couple of layers of politicans between the people and the power, and prevent people getting too close to direct control. And you say that your democracy lets people effect change without people being killed. What happened to Martin Luther King? Or Malcolm X?
The Civil Rights movement succceeded when they changed enough citizen's minds to make "I will support civil rights" an election-winning proposition, and the Civil Rights act was passed.
Some people changed their mind during the campaign, but for the most part, people already agreed with the cause. The movement simply united them and applied pressure to the government to act. This is a good example of how we can change society, but it's wrong to
The problem is that neither Stalin nor Pol Pot ever dreamt of attacking the US. Both were best friends with the US. Pol Pot, for example, enjoyed tremendous support from the US for years. The US thinking was the classic "enemy of my enemy" thing, and they were fighting Vietnam, so it was a very cosy relationship. If you want to analyse even further the incredible catastrophe that happened in Cambodia, you can talk about how the US, when they realised they were in dire trouble in Vietnam, decided to spread the war to Cambodia ( as they now want to spread the war to Iran ). They carpet bombed a civilian, peasant population for 6 months in Cambodia before even admitting to their own citizens back in the US that they were doing so. It was this campaign that lead to the rise of Pol Pot, who they then supported with weapons and such. Did you know any of this? You didn't, did you? Shame on your for talking about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.
As for Stalin, same thing really. He was an ally during WWII. Various congressmen said he was a 'great leader', a 'very trustworth soul' and other things. No I don't have a link. It's time for you to do some of your own research if you want proof of these quotes. And as with Pol Pot, Stalin never threatened the US.
I think I was right the first time: you guys are really scared of the boogey man. He goes by many names. But he's still the boogey man.
Care to back any of these claims up? Sure, I've seen them all before in the mainstream media. What makes you say, for example, that Chavez is silencing dissent, or trashing the economy, or seeking absolute power? These are just throw-away claims with no connection to reality.
You say that Venezualans have less jobs. But this is wrong! Chavez is reversing neo-liberal 'structural adjustment' policies, which is creating jobs. You claim that people are more dependent on government assistance, but this is a very misleading statement. The money from oil is being used to fund social programs, such as education and health. So in this sense, yes, people are more dependent, but this is a good thing, because without these services being provided by the state, they simply would not be provided at all. A more accurate way of describing what's happening is that the welfare state is being increased. This isn't happening to offset some alleged drop in economic activity... it's happening because more of Venezuala's wealth is now accessible to the government, and they're putting it into social programs. I don't see the problem here.
thus being forced to believe that Chavez is their saviour.
This statement gives away the fact that you don't really know what's happening there at all. I even suspect that you're not Brazilian and a former member of the Workers Party as you claim. The people in Venezeula understand where the real power in society lies, and that's not with Chavez. Chavez gets his power from the mass support he enjoys, which will only remain while he continues his reforms, ie his Bolivarian revolution. There is an incredible mistrust of politicans throughout Latin America. The people of Venezeula don't see Chavez as their 'saviour'. This suggests that the people themselves are not participating in the social change they are experiencing. But they understand very well that they are driving change, and that Chavez is simply a friend that they have on the inside. Indeed, one of the reasons the US hasn't had further attempts at assassinating Chavez is that they're frightened from last time that they might trigger an even faster reform... ie spark a more dramatic revolution. Chavez is an incredibly useful tool, but it's the social movements inside Venezeulan society that hold the real power.
Good to see you're starting out from a defensible position... NOT! You then go on to make the point that weapons research leads to non-weapons technology. Sure. But that in no way validates weapons research. You can create new technology, indeed the SAME technology, while not researching and creating new weapons. For example Japan's government also pumps an incredible amount of money into high-tech R&D, including developing lasers, but they don't do it via the military-industrial complex. They invest directly into consumer technology. This is much more efficient in coming up with your consumer technology, as well as not creating new weapons. So I'll complain all I want about weapons research, thankyou very much.
After the cold war the US generally started to influence clients to become democracies where it is not against their direct interests.
BULLSHIT! You mean like in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan ( while they were setting up the Taliban, and now )? Or when they assassinated the democratically elected leader of Chille in 9/11, 1973? Don't give me this 'America support democracy' crap please. I didn't come down in the last shower.
We earn more money because the economy of a democracy isn't so likely to be sh.t and they become better customers
It's true that the economy of a bourgeois democracy under a capitalist system will grow the fastest out of all the organisations structures that we know. That isn't necessarily a good thing, but this is a topic for another discussion. The cold hard truth about the US economy is that it's not exactly riding the wave of exports at the moment. The US economy owes a lot more to its imports than it does to its exports. For example, the US is unbelievably dependent on China for a source of cheap labour. You don't see them pushing China towards a democracy, do you? The only places where the US mentions the word 'democracy' is where they have a natural research worth stealing, and then you can bet it's not democracy that will eventuate, but exactly the opposite. You see, democracy isn't something that is handed down from on high. It's something that people have to struggle for. It's a process. You can't bomb a country into democracy. And I'll say it again: the day when the US pushes for democratic reform in China ( and not via bombing, mind you ), is the day that I reconsider my statement that the US hates democracy.
You US bashers are as boring as the McCarty communist scare or Mid West brimstone preachers -- you just think another group is responsible for everything bad.
Well, the thing is that there are plenty of US-bashers around at the moment. It goes without saying that the Arab world thinks as I do. Europe is no different... when asked to choose the biggest threat to world peace, they choose the US first, and Israel 2nd. The simple fact is that the US, by virtue of its postion as the No 1 imperialist power in the world, is responsible for a great deal of what's wrong in the world. That's why they need more lasers and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons and cluster bombs and immunity from prosecution in the World Court.
OK. Firstly, the US doesn't carry out defense research, it carries out offense research.
Secondly, merely stating that technology that I use comes from US offense research doesn't in any way validate that research. All these technologies could very well emerge through research not linked to killing people.
Also, try to refine your social skills. At the moment, you suck.
I'd say, democracy-wise, the ruler granting himself the power to rule by decree is a pretty bad sign.
:)
Well there are a number of things to say to this.
Firstly, this is exactly what Dubya, Cheney & Gonzales have argued for and achieved in redefining Dubya as the 'commander in chief'.
Secondly, you have taken this 'rule by decree' thing WAY out of context. Chavez wants to nationalize various industries. His population are completely behind him in this. But he's facing a lot of obstacles from inside the state that are preventing him from progressing in this direction. So he's attempted to side-step things that are getting in his way, so he can continue with nationalizing. I think this is justified, and as most coverage has pointed out, so do a majority of Venuzuelans.
It's true that, outside of this context, it doesn't sound too good. But alongside the substantial reforms that he's implemented so far, I think it's clear which direction he's taking. We should also point out that he's set a sunset clause ( something Dubya and Cheney have refused to do ). Also, if he actually tried to use this power against the common good, the people simply would not allow it. We're looking at a revolutionary situation in Venezuela, and Chavez's real power doesn't come from the fact that he wins elections by absolute landslides ( though he does ), it comes from the massive grass-roots campaigns that have emerged inside the revolutionary process. Take, for example, the incredible grass-roots campaign to protect Chavez from the CIA-instigated coup. Or didn't you hear about that one? If you're in America, I assume you didn't hear about it.
Anyway, I would be far more worried about war criminals such as Dubya ( who refuse to sign up to the World Court ) ruling by decree than someone like Chavez, would is really the absolute opposite of Dubya.
Well, Chavez's ongoing implosion of the Venezuelan economy should serve him in good stead, then.
Implosion isn't the correct term. It's called nationalisation.
Seriously, man, anybody who believes Venezula is a shining beacon of progress is a walking trimuph of Marxist ideology over reality.
That's a pretty stupid statement to make. Not only is it wrong, but you make no attempt to back it up. What's up with people's lack of substance when entering discussions? Is education really that bad in the US now?
Being able to recall managers is about democratising the workplace. You can't claim to have democracy if the decisions about what's produced are made by people who are outside the democratic process, can you?
Freedom means less control over other people's lives, not more.
But we're not talking about controlling people's lives, we're talking about controlling production. I never said anything about controlling people's lives. Where did you get that from?
Fucknut? Jesus, the ACs are really raising the bar today. Terrorists in Somalia? I heard it was an Islamic independence movement... which is of course terrorism in US-speak.
China? Sorry, the US military budgets dwarfs them incredibly. The official US military budget accounts for 50% of the world's military budget. So they are outclassing you, but not in the way that you mean.
Problem with your 'every man for himself' and 'why should I support others' argument is that the people doing most of the bludging aren't the people you're suggesting. The bludgers are the capitalists who own the means of production, and therefore control society, set wages, and generally fuck things up. The so-called welfare recipients are just ordinary people who need some support. For example single mothers need help to raise their children, and so society should step in and help them to do this. Everyone is entitled to an equal start.
Some simple facts: 98% of the wealth in US -society is owned by less than 1% of the population. Given this, I really so no merit at all to what you're saying. You're trying to say that we should continue down the 'every man for himself' path, so this top 1% gain more, and all because you can't deal with helping out the less fortunate who need some help? The secret is that there is no need to take money from YOU, unless you are in the top 1%. We need MASSIVE redistribution of wealth, but this is in everyone's interest, apart from the top 1%.
Why should it take 3 working people to support 1 who doesn't work? Well firstly, it doesn't. I don't know where you pulled those figures from, but if you redistribute wealth equitably, these 3 working people will be better off, not worse off. And sure, the 1 non-working person will be better off too. So what? But also, you have to consider WHY they're not working. Could it be that US companies are exporting jobs to China? Could it be that this non-working person is a single parent? You do realise that in the US now, it takes 2 parents working full-time to support a family, and that a single parent working full-time still requires assistance?
Your last rant about drugs / drinking etc is pretty moronic. You're just trying to push conservative people's buttons, aren't you? There's no actual substance to your 'claim' or whatever it is that happened in that last sentence.
Name one, and explain how it's more free (not "a better place to live" or "more friendly to the environment").
Well you're making a very narrow definition of free. Are you saying that a country that bases it's whole existence on unsustainable living and exploiting 3rd world countries is free?
I already named Venezuela as moving in the right direction, based on 1 definition of 'free'. Want more? Fine. The UK has distinguished itself from both the US and Australia by defending the rights of its citizens illegally captured by the US and imprisoned in Guantanimo Bay. They demanded the return of their citizens, and got it. So this demonstrates one kind of 'freedom' where the UK is ahead of the US ( my country, Australia refuses to ask for its citizens back ).
Want more examples? Fine. Australia is more 'free', because people can get access to high quality medical care when they need it ( OK, maybe 18 months late, but blame the Howard government for scaling it back ), via our public health system. In comparison, the US is probably the least 'free' of the industrialised world. Access to medical care is an important freedom. Same goes for education, where the US trails behind basically every OECD country.
How about the freedom of the media? The US is on a fast-track to a fascist state, with the level of merging of the ruling class and the media. There really is only 1 perspective that ever gets any traction in the mainstream media... and that's not because there is only one perspective. Examples? Every mainstream media outlet backed the illegal invasion of Iraq. When the WOMD claims were found out to be false, every mainstream media outlet conveniently found something else to cover, resulting in the sad situation where 30% of Americans still believe to this day that Iraq had WOMD! You show me a people who don't have access to unbiases reporting ( for example this bullshit with 'embedded journalists' ), and I'll show you a people who aren't free.
Enough examples for you? Feel free to comment on them!
If you don't think that common Americans can change public policy -- well, it's black history month, and you should spend some time reading up on things like the Civil Rights movement, the beginning and end of Prohibition
Sorry. These things were won outside of the official 'democratic' system, and in spite of it. You're talking about sustained grass-roots campaigns that threatened to overthrow the official system, so they had to make concessions. And keep in mind that these days if you turn up to a demo the way people involved in these movements did, you get sprayed with chemical weapons, shocked with tasers, and attacked with other so-called 'non-lethal' weapons, that in fact turn out to be more lethal than things would have been without them.
Show me one real reform that has been achieved inside the official 'democratic' system please. Your democracy is a joke, and the whole world is saying it. Seriously. You think you can impeach a president over his personal sexual activity ( and hey, I'm no supporter of Clinton ) and tell me you have a democracy? What he did was private business - the state has no business asking him questions about it or impeaching him over it. That's not democracy. That's the opposite. OK. So, Cliaponton's out. Then what? Then people vote the Democrats back in, but the Republicans and judicial system don't like the sound of that, so they order the vote count to cease, and appoint Bush president. That's not democracy. You don't order people to stop counting votes in a democracy.
Sorry dude. I am incredibly unconvinced that the US is 'free' in any sense of the word. You can think what you like at your own peril.
You mean like the boogey man? I hear there are lot of them lining up on the borders, just waiting the invade the land of the free and scare the bejesus out of you. Don't worry... just pull the sheets over your head.
Another AC! Does no-one have courage or valid points of view these days?
Sure, I've entertained the idea. The problem at the moment is that Venezuela is unstable. It's on the tipping-point of a revolution, but hasn't quite gotten there yet. I also am heavily rooted in my own country - mortgage, job, family, etc. I'm certainly not the kind of person to move countries just because they have some advantages in some areas. They have more freedom of speech, for example. But in Australia, we also have some degree of freedom of speech. If things change, then of course I'll be looking more closely at other countries.
But I'm also not the kind of person to run away from a country just because I've identified problems. Instead I think it's a valid approach to stick it out here and fight to implement the best elements of Venezuela's society into ours. What's wrong with that approach.
Lastly, I assume you think the US is the most free country on Earth, though your response was a little on the light side, so it's hard to say. Perhaps you should move to the pinnacle of their freedom, Guantanimo Bay. I think you'll have a great time there, and it will help you to get some perspective. Go on. When are you moving there?
Hey. At least I know about it. I'm an Australian... and I know about things happening in other people's countries, because I'm interested in the world I live in. The fact that I don't remember exactly what they called the 9/11 commission ( and I do believe I had it right, I was just not 100% sure ), is proof that the media has tried to bury the findings of an extremely importing investigation. But if you want to know exactly what it's called, why don't you go look for yourself? You're not exactly denying anything I'm saying, are you? Is that because you don't know, or because you DO, know... ie know that I'm correct?
I find that people are throwing these mindless 1-line responses around as AC a lot recently... surely the 'coward' part of 'anonymous coward' rings true. A question to all the ACs out there: if you disagree with me enough to respond, why not actually take me up on some of my points? Perhaps it would require a brain and some understanding.
Do you want to actually take issue with something I've stated, or is it all too hard? I have never tried to deny that my own country is up to its eyeballs in the blood of innocents. We slaughtered the Aboriginals when we arrived, and have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US and British terrorists ever since. No hypocracy on my side of the fence.
As for the intelligence 'breakdown' as they call it, that lead to the 9/11 attacks materialising... I think you'll find that these civilian agencies did everything that they could. The problem was that the Bush administration repeatedly ordered them to drop the issue, cease their investigation, and tell no-one about it. This is the intelligence 'breakdown' - it was directed from the top. This has been documented by numerous people, and came out in the 9/11 commission or whatever they called it. Read their report.
It's very subjective. It's easier to so which nation isn't the most free than it is to say which is...
Venezuela is looking very promising. They're creating soviet-style workers' councils and other community-based groups... and this is supported by the state, under Chavez. They're also setting up co-managed factories, where workers elect managers, and can also recall them. This is also a very good step in the right direction, democracy-wise. Read up on the Bolivarian revolution for more info on what direction they're heading in.
As a general rule, the level of development of capitalism inside a country mirrors the level of attacks on personal freedoms. So the big economic powers require more and more power to control their population. This was shown very well in the recent anti-Dick Cheney demos in Sydney. We broke numerous records for police numbers, roads closed, and probably personal injuries resulting from police violence. So I don't think Australia is exactly leading the way here either. Our government's abandonment of David Hicks in Guantanimo Bay for 5 years is another example... as Guantanimo Bay is itself an example of where the US is heading.
I don't see the relevance here. You're trying to make a point, but I really don't see it applying to me in any way. Try making it again, and this time put your brain into gear before hitting the 'submit' button. Or is that why you submitted as AC?
In fact, 25 nations spend a higher percent of their GDP on the militairy than the US does.
This is wrong for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I didn't mention spending as a percentage of GDP; I was talking about absolute spending.
Next, comparing spending / GDP with other nations with incredibly low GDPs isn't really giving a clear picture of what's going on. For example, who the hell is Eritrea, the so-called No 1 in military spending in the world? You see, if these countries have a very small GDP, the figures are going to look distorted even if they only buy a couple of grenades.
Next, the US hides massive amounts of its military spending. The figure they used in that CIA table was the official maintenance cost of the US military. This is the amount that would be required just to keep the military at home. But they're never at home! Things like the wars aren't counted by the US, for some reason. These are 'extra' costs. The trillion dollars that Dubya has asked for to cover the next year in Iraq, well that's not counted. The budget of the CIA, with their military coupes against democratically elected governments and such, well that's not counted. And research on weapons such as this laser. That's not counted either. So you see, if all these things were counted, then the US would be at the top of the list in terms of GDP as well. They're already at the top of the list in absolute terms, which is the point I was originally making.
Really? Where did you read this? I thought it was a big conspiracy by the tin foil companies.
That's because you're either in denial, or you'e completely fooled by the propaganda. It's YOU who needs a tin foil hat:)
Can't say I'm surprised really. The funny thing is that no other nation sees the need to spend anything like the US military budget. I suppose the argument goes that there are people around the world who hate freedom, and since the US is the 'most free' nation on Earth, well, they're prime targets. Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot. Scratch that theory. The alternate argument goes that there are a lot of people around the world who hate US foreign police. This argument seems far more sensible. So for US citizens, the correct path would be to change foreign policy, right? Problem is, US citizens don't live in a democracy, so can't affect the foreign policy of their ruling class. Think I'm wrong? Think again. They just voted out the Republicans in an absolute landslide which is largely recognised as being a rejection of Republican foreign policy, but you watch just how much that policy changes, both now AND when they get rid of Emperor Dubya.
For those who see these laser protecting them from the terrorists' attacks on their homes, I think this is being a bit naive. This laser is to protect military equipment on the battlefield, and the ruling class at home. Just look at how the military didn't lift a finger to stop 9/11, even though they had precise warnings from multiple credible sources. The only thing the US government did was to protect Bin Laden's family after 9/11, flying them back home to safety.
Oh that's rich. Firstly, Muslims don't suicide bomb their own people either. They attack the illegal occupiers. This bullshit about sectarian violence is a myth. Sunnis and Shiites consider each other brothers. They intermarry. Look at the support that Hezbollah gave the Sunnis in Palestine when the Israelis started their latest onslaught. You need to learn some more about your world. Start by changing the channel from Fox. Then you might actually get up from your lounge and turn the TV off completely.
Secondly, I'm not a 'fucking coward Muslim' as you so bitterly put it. I'm a Christian who has renounced his faith.
Thirdly, I don't see how you consider Muslims cowards. They stand up to the terrorism of the Christian world against their war-torn lands. They fight the US occupiers in Iraq with incredible courage. I salute them for this. It's the US, largely Christian army, that are the cowards, hiding behind their weapons of mass destruction, apache helicopters, 'depleted' uranium weapons, etc.
In summary, Grant, you're dead wrong, and are demonstrating your extreme arrogance that you clearly pick up from the dominant culture in your homeland. Look out for low-flying planes, won't you:)
That's because you're an inarticulate dickhead with no ideas other than those rammed down your throat by the media. What you need to do is to put a brain between your ears and your ideas.
Fundamentalist Islam is a relatively new phenomenon that's emerged in response to a hundred years of western imperialism. I would say that there's more truth to your position if you remove 'Islam' and insert 'Christianity'. The destruction that Christianity has brought to the entire world is well known. It decimates indigenous religions and cultures, and spreads 'by the sword'. Islam spreads in a different way. Historically it has been passed on by traders, and has mixed organically with indigenous culture and religion. Islam has also been far more secular than Christianity, and infinitely more secular than, say Israel.
I really hate arseholes such as yourself that feel the need to spread racist lies to prop up their own position. If there are problems with your life, you should look at them honestly. If you feel threatened by terrorists, then you need to look much closer to home, where the world's biggest terrorist plot to seize control of the entire world via violence. Quit attacking cultures that you clearly know nothing about and learn some more about the world.
But the police this morning were unbelievable. We were outnumbered probably 50 to 1. We were standing around looking at each other, talking, etc. I was being interviewed by a reporter. Then 2 lines of police went around the back of us. Everybody watched, thinking, "OK. Why are we being surrounded?". Then about 10 police attacked 2 girls ( one of them 16 years old ). They pushed them to the ground, then started beating them up. We of course tried to pull them off, but then we got kicked in the back by other police. When it was over, an ambulance carried the 2 girls away. It was completely unprovoked. As a socialist, I can't say I'm particularly surprised. Saddened though.
Slashdot Mirror
Something else I forgot to say before hitting 'submit' ...
Thankyou for actually engaging me in an intellectual discussion. Your post was a couple of levels above everything else I've seen today.
Oh that's cute. What you're saying is that you can have a 'free' country where everything required for life is priced beyond the average person's reach, but it's still somehow 'free' because you've matched up some tiny aspect of the state with your dictionary definition of 'free'. If I lived in such a society, I would be 'free' go out and try to earn an higher than average wage to then spend on some bare necessities, but of course, even if I'm successful, that doesn't make things different for the majority of people at or below the average wage, does it. Freedom has to be actually in reach, not some abstract hypothetical freedom that the rich can sit around and ponder while everyone else starves etc.
The UN is not the authority here. The Nuremberg trials established that the type of war the US is fighting in Iraq is an illegal war of aggression. There is simply no basis, in international law or in precedent, for invading a country for pre-emptive 'defense'. And as you've pointed out yourself, the WOMD claims were lies. But worse than that, they were intentional fabrications. In my books, that makes the whole escapade illegal. Even droppping the WOMD excuse and moving to regime change ... that's simply not legal either.
Yes and they were handed to him by the US. And they stuck around to see what happened too. The CIA oversaw their testing on the Kurds. That's why no-one wanted to try him for these attrocities ... because the US was up to it's eyeballs in the whole thing. Also keep in mind that the US and and Israel have been caught using WOMD in Iraq and Lebanon. The old 'do as we say, not as we do', eh?
No. The judiciary order the recount to stop. I don't need to show you any polls. That simple act says it all. Even discounting the massive difference between exit polls and the official tally, you simply can't order an end to counting votes, and then in the next breath say that you're in a democracy.
In the US, it's to put a couple of layers of politicans between the people and the power, and prevent people getting too close to direct control. And you say that your democracy lets people effect change without people being killed. What happened to Martin Luther King? Or Malcolm X?
Some people changed their mind during the campaign, but for the most part, people already agreed with the cause. The movement simply united them and applied pressure to the government to act. This is a good example of how we can change society, but it's wrong to
The problem is that neither Stalin nor Pol Pot ever dreamt of attacking the US. Both were best friends with the US. Pol Pot, for example, enjoyed tremendous support from the US for years. The US thinking was the classic "enemy of my enemy" thing, and they were fighting Vietnam, so it was a very cosy relationship. If you want to analyse even further the incredible catastrophe that happened in Cambodia, you can talk about how the US, when they realised they were in dire trouble in Vietnam, decided to spread the war to Cambodia ( as they now want to spread the war to Iran ). They carpet bombed a civilian, peasant population for 6 months in Cambodia before even admitting to their own citizens back in the US that they were doing so. It was this campaign that lead to the rise of Pol Pot, who they then supported with weapons and such. Did you know any of this? You didn't, did you? Shame on your for talking about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.
As for Stalin, same thing really. He was an ally during WWII. Various congressmen said he was a 'great leader', a 'very trustworth soul' and other things. No I don't have a link. It's time for you to do some of your own research if you want proof of these quotes. And as with Pol Pot, Stalin never threatened the US.
I think I was right the first time: you guys are really scared of the boogey man. He goes by many names. But he's still the boogey man.
You say that Venezualans have less jobs. But this is wrong! Chavez is reversing neo-liberal 'structural adjustment' policies, which is creating jobs. You claim that people are more dependent on government assistance, but this is a very misleading statement. The money from oil is being used to fund social programs, such as education and health. So in this sense, yes, people are more dependent, but this is a good thing, because without these services being provided by the state, they simply would not be provided at all. A more accurate way of describing what's happening is that the welfare state is being increased. This isn't happening to offset some alleged drop in economic activity
This statement gives away the fact that you don't really know what's happening there at all. I even suspect that you're not Brazilian and a former member of the Workers Party as you claim. The people in Venezeula understand where the real power in society lies, and that's not with Chavez. Chavez gets his power from the mass support he enjoys, which will only remain while he continues his reforms, ie his Bolivarian revolution. There is an incredible mistrust of politicans throughout Latin America. The people of Venezeula don't see Chavez as their 'saviour'. This suggests that the people themselves are not participating in the social change they are experiencing. But they understand very well that they are driving change, and that Chavez is simply a friend that they have on the inside. Indeed, one of the reasons the US hasn't had further attempts at assassinating Chavez is that they're frightened from last time that they might trigger an even faster reform
Good to see you're starting out from a defensible position
BULLSHIT! You mean like in Vietnam? Or Iraq? Or Afghanistan ( while they were setting up the Taliban, and now )? Or when they assassinated the democratically elected leader of Chille in 9/11, 1973? Don't give me this 'America support democracy' crap please. I didn't come down in the last shower.
It's true that the economy of a bourgeois democracy under a capitalist system will grow the fastest out of all the organisations structures that we know. That isn't necessarily a good thing, but this is a topic for another discussion. The cold hard truth about the US economy is that it's not exactly riding the wave of exports at the moment. The US economy owes a lot more to its imports than it does to its exports . For example, the US is unbelievably dependent on China for a source of cheap labour. You don't see them pushing China towards a democracy, do you? The only places where the US mentions the word 'democracy' is where they have a natural research worth stealing, and then you can bet it's not democracy that will eventuate, but exactly the opposite. You see, democracy isn't something that is handed down from on high. It's something that people have to struggle for. It's a process. You can't bomb a country into democracy. And I'll say it again: the day when the US pushes for democratic reform in China ( and not via bombing, mind you ), is the day that I reconsider my statement that the US hates democracy.
Well, the thing is that there are plenty of US-bashers around at the moment. It goes without saying that the Arab world thinks as I do. Europe is no different
OK. Firstly, the US doesn't carry out defense research, it carries out offense research.
Secondly, merely stating that technology that I use comes from US offense research doesn't in any way validate that research. All these technologies could very well emerge through research not linked to killing people.
Also, try to refine your social skills. At the moment, you suck.
Well there are a number of things to say to this.
Firstly, this is exactly what Dubya, Cheney & Gonzales have argued for and achieved in redefining Dubya as the 'commander in chief'.
Secondly, you have taken this 'rule by decree' thing WAY out of context. Chavez wants to nationalize various industries. His population are completely behind him in this. But he's facing a lot of obstacles from inside the state that are preventing him from progressing in this direction. So he's attempted to side-step things that are getting in his way, so he can continue with nationalizing. I think this is justified, and as most coverage has pointed out, so do a majority of Venuzuelans.
It's true that, outside of this context, it doesn't sound too good. But alongside the substantial reforms that he's implemented so far, I think it's clear which direction he's taking. We should also point out that he's set a sunset clause ( something Dubya and Cheney have refused to do ). Also, if he actually tried to use this power against the common good, the people simply would not allow it. We're looking at a revolutionary situation in Venezuela, and Chavez's real power doesn't come from the fact that he wins elections by absolute landslides ( though he does ), it comes from the massive grass-roots campaigns that have emerged inside the revolutionary process. Take, for example, the incredible grass-roots campaign to protect Chavez from the CIA-instigated coup. Or didn't you hear about that one? If you're in America, I assume you didn't hear about it.
Anyway, I would be far more worried about war criminals such as Dubya ( who refuse to sign up to the World Court ) ruling by decree than someone like Chavez, would is really the absolute opposite of Dubya.
Implosion isn't the correct term. It's called nationalisation.
That's a pretty stupid statement to make. Not only is it wrong, but you make no attempt to back it up. What's up with people's lack of substance when entering discussions? Is education really that bad in the US now?
But we're not talking about controlling people's lives, we're talking about controlling production. I never said anything about controlling people's lives. Where did you get that from?
Fucknut? Jesus, the ACs are really raising the bar today. Terrorists in Somalia? I heard it was an Islamic independence movement ... which is of course terrorism in US-speak.
China? Sorry, the US military budgets dwarfs them incredibly. The official US military budget accounts for 50% of the world's military budget. So they are outclassing you, but not in the way that you mean.
Are you talking about the Iraqis or the US?
My, my, the ACs are out in numbers today!
Problem with your 'every man for himself' and 'why should I support others' argument is that the people doing most of the bludging aren't the people you're suggesting. The bludgers are the capitalists who own the means of production, and therefore control society, set wages, and generally fuck things up. The so-called welfare recipients are just ordinary people who need some support. For example single mothers need help to raise their children, and so society should step in and help them to do this. Everyone is entitled to an equal start.
Some simple facts: 98% of the wealth in US -society is owned by less than 1% of the population. Given this, I really so no merit at all to what you're saying. You're trying to say that we should continue down the 'every man for himself' path, so this top 1% gain more, and all because you can't deal with helping out the less fortunate who need some help? The secret is that there is no need to take money from YOU, unless you are in the top 1%. We need MASSIVE redistribution of wealth, but this is in everyone's interest, apart from the top 1%.
Why should it take 3 working people to support 1 who doesn't work? Well firstly, it doesn't. I don't know where you pulled those figures from, but if you redistribute wealth equitably, these 3 working people will be better off, not worse off. And sure, the 1 non-working person will be better off too. So what? But also, you have to consider WHY they're not working. Could it be that US companies are exporting jobs to China? Could it be that this non-working person is a single parent? You do realise that in the US now, it takes 2 parents working full-time to support a family, and that a single parent working full-time still requires assistance?
Your last rant about drugs / drinking etc is pretty moronic. You're just trying to push conservative people's buttons, aren't you? There's no actual substance to your 'claim' or whatever it is that happened in that last sentence.
Well you're making a very narrow definition of free. Are you saying that a country that bases it's whole existence on unsustainable living and exploiting 3rd world countries is free?
I already named Venezuela as moving in the right direction, based on 1 definition of 'free'. Want more? Fine. The UK has distinguished itself from both the US and Australia by defending the rights of its citizens illegally captured by the US and imprisoned in Guantanimo Bay. They demanded the return of their citizens, and got it. So this demonstrates one kind of 'freedom' where the UK is ahead of the US ( my country, Australia refuses to ask for its citizens back ).
Want more examples? Fine. Australia is more 'free', because people can get access to high quality medical care when they need it ( OK, maybe 18 months late, but blame the Howard government for scaling it back ), via our public health system. In comparison, the US is probably the least 'free' of the industrialised world. Access to medical care is an important freedom. Same goes for education, where the US trails behind basically every OECD country.
How about the freedom of the media? The US is on a fast-track to a fascist state, with the level of merging of the ruling class and the media. There really is only 1 perspective that ever gets any traction in the mainstream media
Enough examples for you? Feel free to comment on them!
Sorry. These things were won outside of the official 'democratic' system, and in spite of it. You're talking about sustained grass-roots campaigns that threatened to overthrow the official system, so they had to make concessions. And keep in mind that these days if you turn up to a demo the way people involved in these movements did, you get sprayed with chemical weapons, shocked with tasers, and attacked with other so-called 'non-lethal' weapons, that in fact turn out to be more lethal than things would have been without them.
Show me one real reform that has been achieved inside the official 'democratic' system please. Your democracy is a joke, and the whole world is saying it. Seriously. You think you can impeach a president over his personal sexual activity ( and hey, I'm no supporter of Clinton ) and tell me you have a democracy? What he did was private business - the state has no business asking him questions about it or impeaching him over it. That's not democracy. That's the opposite. OK. So, Cliaponton's out. Then what? Then people vote the Democrats back in, but the Republicans and judicial system don't like the sound of that, so they order the vote count to cease, and appoint Bush president. That's not democracy. You don't order people to stop counting votes in a democracy.
Sorry dude. I am incredibly unconvinced that the US is 'free' in any sense of the word. You can think what you like at your own peril.
You mean like the boogey man? I hear there are lot of them lining up on the borders, just waiting the invade the land of the free and scare the bejesus out of you. Don't worry ... just pull the sheets over your head.
Another AC! Does no-one have courage or valid points of view these days?
Sure, I've entertained the idea. The problem at the moment is that Venezuela is unstable. It's on the tipping-point of a revolution, but hasn't quite gotten there yet. I also am heavily rooted in my own country - mortgage, job, family, etc. I'm certainly not the kind of person to move countries just because they have some advantages in some areas. They have more freedom of speech, for example. But in Australia, we also have some degree of freedom of speech. If things change, then of course I'll be looking more closely at other countries.
But I'm also not the kind of person to run away from a country just because I've identified problems. Instead I think it's a valid approach to stick it out here and fight to implement the best elements of Venezuela's society into ours. What's wrong with that approach.
Lastly, I assume you think the US is the most free country on Earth, though your response was a little on the light side, so it's hard to say. Perhaps you should move to the pinnacle of their freedom, Guantanimo Bay. I think you'll have a great time there, and it will help you to get some perspective. Go on. When are you moving there?
Hey. At least I know about it. I'm an Australian ... and I know about things happening in other people's countries, because I'm interested in the world I live in. The fact that I don't remember exactly what they called the 9/11 commission ( and I do believe I had it right, I was just not 100% sure ), is proof that the media has tried to bury the findings of an extremely importing investigation. But if you want to know exactly what it's called, why don't you go look for yourself? You're not exactly denying anything I'm saying, are you? Is that because you don't know, or because you DO, know ... ie know that I'm correct?
... surely the 'coward' part of 'anonymous coward' rings true. A question to all the ACs out there: if you disagree with me enough to respond, why not actually take me up on some of my points? Perhaps it would require a brain and some understanding.
I find that people are throwing these mindless 1-line responses around as AC a lot recently
Prefabricated worldview? Pot? Kettle? Black?
... I think you'll find that these civilian agencies did everything that they could. The problem was that the Bush administration repeatedly ordered them to drop the issue, cease their investigation, and tell no-one about it. This is the intelligence 'breakdown' - it was directed from the top. This has been documented by numerous people, and came out in the 9/11 commission or whatever they called it. Read their report.
Do you want to actually take issue with something I've stated, or is it all too hard? I have never tried to deny that my own country is up to its eyeballs in the blood of innocents. We slaughtered the Aboriginals when we arrived, and have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with US and British terrorists ever since. No hypocracy on my side of the fence.
As for the intelligence 'breakdown' as they call it, that lead to the 9/11 attacks materialising
It's very subjective. It's easier to so which nation isn't the most free than it is to say which is...
... and this is supported by the state, under Chavez. They're also setting up co-managed factories, where workers elect managers, and can also recall them. This is also a very good step in the right direction, democracy-wise. Read up on the Bolivarian revolution for more info on what direction they're heading in.
... as Guantanimo Bay is itself an example of where the US is heading.
Venezuela is looking very promising. They're creating soviet-style workers' councils and other community-based groups
As a general rule, the level of development of capitalism inside a country mirrors the level of attacks on personal freedoms. So the big economic powers require more and more power to control their population. This was shown very well in the recent anti-Dick Cheney demos in Sydney. We broke numerous records for police numbers, roads closed, and probably personal injuries resulting from police violence. So I don't think Australia is exactly leading the way here either. Our government's abandonment of David Hicks in Guantanimo Bay for 5 years is another example
I don't see the relevance here. You're trying to make a point, but I really don't see it applying to me in any way. Try making it again, and this time put your brain into gear before hitting the 'submit' button. Or is that why you submitted as AC?
This is wrong for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I didn't mention spending as a percentage of GDP; I was talking about absolute spending.
Next, comparing spending / GDP with other nations with incredibly low GDPs isn't really giving a clear picture of what's going on. For example, who the hell is Eritrea, the so-called No 1 in military spending in the world? You see, if these countries have a very small GDP, the figures are going to look distorted even if they only buy a couple of grenades.
Next, the US hides massive amounts of its military spending. The figure they used in that CIA table was the official maintenance cost of the US military. This is the amount that would be required just to keep the military at home. But they're never at home! Things like the wars aren't counted by the US, for some reason. These are 'extra' costs. The trillion dollars that Dubya has asked for to cover the next year in Iraq, well that's not counted. The budget of the CIA, with their military coupes against democratically elected governments and such, well that's not counted. And research on weapons such as this laser. That's not counted either. So you see, if all these things were counted, then the US would be at the top of the list in terms of GDP as well. They're already at the top of the list in absolute terms, which is the point I was originally making.
That's because you're either in denial, or you'e completely fooled by the propaganda. It's YOU who needs a tin foil hat
North Korea has never had soviets.
Can't say I'm surprised really. The funny thing is that no other nation sees the need to spend anything like the US military budget. I suppose the argument goes that there are people around the world who hate freedom, and since the US is the 'most free' nation on Earth, well, they're prime targets. Problem is that the US isn't the 'most free' nation on Earth - not by a long shot. Scratch that theory. The alternate argument goes that there are a lot of people around the world who hate US foreign police. This argument seems far more sensible. So for US citizens, the correct path would be to change foreign policy, right? Problem is, US citizens don't live in a democracy, so can't affect the foreign policy of their ruling class. Think I'm wrong? Think again. They just voted out the Republicans in an absolute landslide which is largely recognised as being a rejection of Republican foreign policy, but you watch just how much that policy changes, both now AND when they get rid of Emperor Dubya.
For those who see these laser protecting them from the terrorists' attacks on their homes, I think this is being a bit naive. This laser is to protect military equipment on the battlefield, and the ruling class at home. Just look at how the military didn't lift a finger to stop 9/11, even though they had precise warnings from multiple credible sources. The only thing the US government did was to protect Bin Laden's family after 9/11, flying them back home to safety.
Oh that's rich. Firstly, Muslims don't suicide bomb their own people either. They attack the illegal occupiers. This bullshit about sectarian violence is a myth. Sunnis and Shiites consider each other brothers. They intermarry. Look at the support that Hezbollah gave the Sunnis in Palestine when the Israelis started their latest onslaught. You need to learn some more about your world. Start by changing the channel from Fox. Then you might actually get up from your lounge and turn the TV off completely.
:)
Secondly, I'm not a 'fucking coward Muslim' as you so bitterly put it. I'm a Christian who has renounced his faith.
Thirdly, I don't see how you consider Muslims cowards. They stand up to the terrorism of the Christian world against their war-torn lands. They fight the US occupiers in Iraq with incredible courage. I salute them for this. It's the US, largely Christian army, that are the cowards, hiding behind their weapons of mass destruction, apache helicopters, 'depleted' uranium weapons, etc.
In summary, Grant, you're dead wrong, and are demonstrating your extreme arrogance that you clearly pick up from the dominant culture in your homeland. Look out for low-flying planes, won't you
That's because you're an inarticulate dickhead with no ideas other than those rammed down your throat by the media. What you need to do is to put a brain between your ears and your ideas.
Don't think so.
Fundamentalist Islam is a relatively new phenomenon that's emerged in response to a hundred years of western imperialism. I would say that there's more truth to your position if you remove 'Islam' and insert 'Christianity'. The destruction that Christianity has brought to the entire world is well known. It decimates indigenous religions and cultures, and spreads 'by the sword'. Islam spreads in a different way. Historically it has been passed on by traders, and has mixed organically with indigenous culture and religion. Islam has also been far more secular than Christianity, and infinitely more secular than, say Israel.
I really hate arseholes such as yourself that feel the need to spread racist lies to prop up their own position. If there are problems with your life, you should look at them honestly. If you feel threatened by terrorists, then you need to look much closer to home, where the world's biggest terrorist plot to seize control of the entire world via violence. Quit attacking cultures that you clearly know nothing about and learn some more about the world.
I'm not too concerned about Cheney's aim :)
But the police this morning were unbelievable. We were outnumbered probably 50 to 1. We were standing around looking at each other, talking, etc. I was being interviewed by a reporter. Then 2 lines of police went around the back of us. Everybody watched, thinking, "OK. Why are we being surrounded?". Then about 10 police attacked 2 girls ( one of them 16 years old ). They pushed them to the ground, then started beating them up. We of course tried to pull them off, but then we got kicked in the back by other police. When it was over, an ambulance carried the 2 girls away. It was completely unprovoked. As a socialist, I can't say I'm particularly surprised. Saddened though.