It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Poll : Should the US Spread Democracy?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
The Associated Press (AP) polled people in nine countries about their attitudes to Bush's plan to promote democracy and also, about US products. Not one country in the nine surveyed had a majority of people who thought the US should be in the business of "spreading democracy," according to the AP poll. Excepting for Mexico, no country's majority prefers to buy American-made products. 53% of Americans disagree with Bush's plan.


 



www.guardian.co.uk
BRITAIN: Two-thirds in Britain don't think the United States should take the role of spreading democracy.

CANADA: By almost a 3-1 margin, Canadians don't think the United States should be trying to spread democracy and end tyranny.

FRANCE: More than eight in 10, 84 percent, say the United States should not be in the business of exporting democracy - the highest level of opposition of five European countries polled.

GERMANY: By a large margin, Germans disagree with the Bush administration's goal of spreading democracy.

ITALY: Just over half of Italians, 53 percent, say the United States should not be in the business of spreading democracy around the world.

MEXICO: ...close economic ties to the U.S. remain healthy even though they disagree with President Bush's plan to spread democracy and end tyranny around the world.

SOUTH KOREA: South Koreans say by a 2-1 margin that they do not think the United States should be trying to spread democracy.

SPAIN: By a 2-1 margin, Spaniards say they do not think the United States should be trying to spread democracy and end tyranny.

UNITED STATES: A slight majority, 53 percent, disagree with President Bush's plan to spread democracy to other countries, while just over four in 10, 45 percent, agree.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Bush and his supporters claim they don't care what their neighbors and friends think of them, so this poll likely will not influence many American's opinions. However, it's interesting to see the numbers and a bit more detail.

The assessments of American-made products are important to the USA's economic future, especially considering the national debt and the falling value of the USD.



[edit on 23-2-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
There is no such thing as a democracy for people. The goverment just wants more and more for itself. There is only one problem in the world. USA spreading democracy is part of it... check the link for what I'm talking about

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's the same as one person exporting their personal belief on others, just for their own personal gain.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Lets pretend for a second that politics is like VD. We're spreading it around the world and trying to figure out if it's a good or bad decision to do so. Okay, I see our current 'strain' of democracy to be one of the worst since recorded memory, at least on the surface - so I'd equate it to syphilis. What we need to do is refine and tweak democracy, and turn it into Mystery VD 05, the symptoms of which should be honesty, accountability, freedom of choice, religion, and speech, at the core. Other symptoms manifest as we think of them.


In answer to the poll, no, I don't think we should be in the business of exporting our flawed system of governance. I think we should finish working on it, rather than sell (with air support) the Beta with all it's attendant bugs.

I think there are better systems possible, even though Democracy is one of the best, if not the best in concept and occasional execution. There are other governments that work well on paper, but they generally fall short in the implementation. There have been some stabs at utopia on paper, none of which are complete. Perhaps that should be a project undertaken by a unified internet community..hmmm...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
No individual Country should make the decision for all the world.
No alliance or individual Country should attack a country to spread democracy.

If democracy should be spread it should be done by working with the government and peoples of places that need it the most. It should be done peacefully. If it not done peacefully how does that spread the message of democracy?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I think it is perefectly acceptable to encourage Democracy in other nations. But It is obvious the US only wants to impose democracy to those that are enemies of the US. And doesn't care what type of government Sadia Arabia uses



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
i personally vote no, as from what i have seen its not really a democracy. i get to vote for the guy in charge (local, state, federal) but then he/she never asks us to our opinion, just goes about their business voting us into war and what not...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
personally, I think it's one of those opposites that someone brought up on another thread.....what better way to distract the people from noticing the demise of their democracy than to have them focused on us speading democracy around the globe!!!!

I don't know, Reagan did a pretty good job bringing down the communist soviet union, and I don't believe he ever dropped one bomb on any of them.

[edit on 23-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Interestingly enough...if it's "right" to spread democracy, then who's to say it isn't "right" to spread communism, or extreme theist regimes, etc.?

WHO decides what is "right" to spread?

Obviously...the answer is the one with the biggest and most guns...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
personally, I think it's one of those opposites that someone brought up on another thread.....what better way to distract the people from noticing the demise of their democracy than to have them focused on us speading democracy around the globe!!!!

I don't know, Reagan did a pretty good job bringing down the communist soviet union, and I don't believe he ever dropped one bomb on any of them.

[edit on 23-2-2005 by dawnstar]

the cold war was fought by burning resources untill one side ran out and collapsed. why do you think we have so much debt?



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I dunno, could be interesting. The exportation of the french revolution to the rest of europe certainly had far reaching consequences and did more for the cause of reform than any possible internal movements.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The Only True Law


Originally posted by Gazrok
Obviously...the answer is the one with the biggest and most guns...

It's been true as long as there have been guns, and longer.

The overarching principle has been true since the time the first human discovered the ability to harm other humans, and ultimately applies to all living things, not just humans.

The foundation of all law is the Law of the Jungle.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The United States Government isn't spreading democracy. They're spreading tyranny. They just want you to think they're spreading democracy.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Interestingly enough...if it's "right" to spread democracy, then who's to say it isn't "right" to spread communism, or extreme theist regimes, etc.?

WHO decides what is "right" to spread?

Obviously...the answer is the one with the biggest and most guns...



Hmmm. I hope for all our sakes that somebody, somewhere, with lots and lots of humungous guns believes in old-fashioned civilization and democracy.


.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   
This is truly sad. It proves to me that the USA is the only bastion of morality and humanity left in the world, the people in these countries by an overwhlming margin have spoken as one, they said that they do not care for thier fellow man, do not feel they deserve the same rights and freedom they themselves enjoy, and do not care to stop the opression, and brutality that spans the globe. France of all the nations you have spoken the most clearly and loudly on your contempt for those less fortunate than you, you have rejected the dea that all men are created equal and that all deserve the basic right to self determination. I pity yo truly, for more so than any other you have lost your way, and I pray tht one dy you will see that you and your government are hlping the spread of corruption, tyranny, opression, and evil.

For evil to succeed all that is required is for good men to do nothing.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
For evil to succeed all that is required is for good men to do nothing.

Would you really know evil when you saw it? Its all perspective. Yours is clear to you but it is not so for many. Are America's hands clean or awash with the blood of other people's children? Was it WMDs or the deliverence of democracy or oil. Will depleted uranium destroy Iraq forever? You Mwm1331 cannot possibly know the answers to any of these questions though you are instilled with righteous indignation that America holds the high moral ground. Perhaps you are right. But evil can just as easily be painted in pastels and delivered as roses.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
the cold war was fought by burning resources untill one side ran out and collapsed. why do you think we have so much debt?


zfacts.com...

well, here is a graph of the debt....seems to me we would have been building up that army over time, and well, from 1950 to carter's term, the debt was falling like a rock....until Bush Sr. and Reagan took office....then it started going back up, it peaked during clintons term and was .ing down, and then when Bush Jr. came into office, it began rising again. I could conclude alot by looking at this graph, but I am not sure I would be able to attribute the national debt to our weapon's build up with Russia.
Seems to me we had already developed many of our missle systems, and had fought the viet nam war, on much less...

www.federalbudget.com...

and well, this graph gives a breakdown of where the money has been going for the past four years...
the biggest chunks, and I think biggest growth in most cases, has been in the areas of defense, health and human services, interest on our debt, and social security...although technically, social security has operating on a surplus at the moment and well, is funded by us through it's own tax....at the moment, it's a revenue maker.

I think it has much more to do with those other programs listed, health and human services.......maybe both Reagan and Bush, through their economic policies and generous tax cuts to designed to stimulate the economy had something to do with it? which if this is the case, we can't afford to spread democracy too far, can we?





[edit on 24-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Dawnstar, if you read in between the lines of the goal the people in that site want to achive you will see they have an agenda in mind, which was for president Bush not to get re-elected. They even state this on the site you gave a link to....

Now, for a more accurate graph of how the national debt has been growing, here is a good site. Do note what the owner of that site states in the first paragraph.


"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.


Still the owner of this site seems to be a bit more...reliable and trustworthy than a site whose sole purpose was to try to get people not to vote for president Bush.

Here is a link to the site.
www.brillig.com...

Do note in these graphs that the debt has been growing since the 1970s at an almost steady pace. Also note that in 1999 and 2000 the debt was going horizontally, until 2001. 9/11 did change a lot in the world....

[edit on 24-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Now, for a more accurate graph of how the national debt has been growing, here is a good site. Do note what the owner of that site states in the first paragraph.


"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.



Here is a link to the site.
www.brillig.com...

Do note in these graphs that the debt has been growing since the 1970s at an almost steady pace. Also note that in 1999 and 2000 the debt was going horizontally, until 2001. 9/11 did change a lot in the world....







Good points Maudib - and one of my favorite sites.



.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
actually, if started rising sharply around 1983, as the site you referred to me says...
"As you can see, except for a rise at the end of World War II, the Debt remained remarkably constant for nearly forty years when inflationary forces are taken into account. After 1983 however, with the notable exception of the Fiscal Years ending in September of 2000 and 2001, the trend has been upward even when inflation is taken into account. "

as far as I can see, and well, maybe I am wrong, the two graphs are different in that one uses a percent of the gpd, and one says it was adjusted for inflation......maybe the difference could be attributed to just how the did their graphs, and has nothing to do with agendas?

still, they both say about the same thing....the debt began soaring during the beginning of the reagan/bush era, dropped some during the clinton ere, and beginning of the bush, and then has been raising significantly......
i don't think our huge debt is because of the arms race with russia, since reagan came at the end of it.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
actually, if started rising sharply around 1983, as the site you referred to me says...
"As you can see, except for a rise at the end of World War II, the Debt remained remarkably constant for nearly forty years when inflationary forces are taken into account. After 1983 however, with the notable exception of the Fiscal Years ending in September of 2000 and 2001, the trend has been upward even when inflation is taken into account. "

....the debt began soaring during the beginning of the reagan/bush era, dropped some during the clinton ere, and beginning of the bush, and then has been raising significantly......
i don't think our huge debt is because of the arms race with russia, since reagan came at the end of it.







Thanks dawnstar. Excellent observations.



.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join