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.

 

Vengeance and the Meaning of Democracy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   
The Bush administration is decrying the Philippines for pulling out of Iraq. And yet, it is the same people who try and shove democracy down the throats of Iraq and every other country. But, what is their definition of democracy, really? If one has to introduce it by the barrel of a gun, is it real as we in the western world know it? Or is it tyranny cloaked by fancy phrases and feel-good photo-ops?

The Philippine people have demanded their government bring home their contigent and wash their hands of the affair. They have every right to. In my thinking, a government that responds to the demands of its populace is the essence of a Democratic government. Our government has no right to berate the Philippine government for adhering to its people's wishes.

Here's a good article on this:

Vengeance

WHAT do Australian Prime Minister John Howard and American President George W. Bush have in common? They have criticized the Philippines but their criticism is based on policies increasingly rejected by their own people. Indeed, while he has not been vocal about the Philippines, one might add that British Prime Minister Tony Blair suffers from an increasing sense of political insecurity, along with the other leading figures of the Washington-Rome-Canberra Axis.

Winston Churchill in 1936 told an American newspaper in reference to the US entry into World War I: "America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war, the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives."
www.inq7.net...




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
What are you talking about?

The Phillipines government brought their soldiers home. Bush has a right to criticize them for doing so, just like I do. (I also criticize Spain for folding like a wet noodle earlier this year after their horrific terrorist attack.) Bush isn't forcing Phillipine troops to stay in Iraq by the barrel of a gun...



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
What are you talking about?

The Phillipines government brought their soldiers home. Bush has a right to criticize them for doing so, just like I do. (I also criticize Spain for folding like a wet noodle earlier this year after their horrific terrorist attack.) Bush isn't forcing Phillipine troops to stay in Iraq by the barrel of a gun...


Spains people were unhappy with the war, they voted in a new leader, he pulled the troops out. Democracy, plain and simple. I don't see how there's anything to criticize. Personally, I'd feel safer with our troops here in America, guarding airports, train stations, power plants, and the like.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   
perhaps you should raise your right hand, take the pledge and go off to fight for your beliefs. I'd be quite interested to know how you felt about this whole situation after one tour over there.



[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Personally, I'd feel safer with our troops here in America, guarding airports, train stations, power plants, and the like.

-koji K.


Not to mention our borders.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
What are you talking about?

I also criticize Spain for folding like a wet noodle earlier this year after their horrific terrorist attack.


- I'd love to hear how you think Spain 'folded' anything. Let's hear your theory versus the truth.....

The Iraqi war was not popular in spain. The people of Spain did not want to be in it.

The people of Spain caught the old Spainish government of ex-Prime Minister Aznar attempting to 'use' the Madrid bombings for their own narrow selfish political ends in relation to Spain's problem with the Basques.

There were 2 - 3 days between the Madrid bombing and the poll. This political maneuvering was obvious by the end of the first day and the start of the second day. In fact Aznar & Co. almost got away with it.

A wave of very angry outrage swept Spain and Aznar and Co were booted out.

.....and for those who insist on claiming that there was not enough time for this scenario to be the truth I suggest you consider your own country and how many nano-seconds your political leaders woul last if they were caught 100% guilty at this kind of outrageous behaviour. Spain is a modern country with the same modern communications as any developed country.

They kicked out their old government because of what their government did not because of the terrorist bombing, that was merely the backdrop of the later events.

Any other view is simply ignorance, ignorant propaganda or a refusal to acknowledge the actual facts.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Another excellent post EKC.

I recall the example of Turkey in the lead up to the war. They listened to the wishes of the majority of their people and did not allow the US to use its territory for a second front. They were harshly criticized and punished for exercising democracy.

spelling

[edit on 7/22/2004 by Gools]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
You're right, SminkeyPinkey, Turkey actually did listen to its people in the face of terrible pressure being levied by the US government. That took courage and I applaud them.

That is DEMOCRACY.

I also applaud the good sense of the people of Spain, for not letting terror influence their vote. Well, as pointed out above, it did in a way. Instead of caving in to panic, they saw it for what it was. A hopelessly corrupt attempt at keeping Aznar in power. They were smarter than that and threw him out on his a$$.

I can only hope the American people are that savvy. You can bet your bottom dollar any terrorist enemy of ours is NOT going to do anything to get George W. Bush re-elected. So, ask yourselves, who are the real terrorists?

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Great post, EastCoastKid.

I am real disappointed in our government. They preach democracy, but in the end, they have to pretend this is what the American people want.

I feel real sorry for our fellow citizens who are ignorant enough to say "Our voice counts." The war in Iraq is enough to show otherwise.

If America is going to not be a democracy. I am 100% fine with that. I just wish they wouldn't pretend like they are.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by koji_K
Personally, I'd feel safer with our troops here in America, guarding airports, train stations, power plants, and the like.

-koji K.


Not to mention our borders.


That won't happen. Both parties in the the pockets of immigration (legal and illegal) lobbies. One is afraid of being called racist, and the other wants a supply of future votes.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Great post, EastCoastKid.



Thanks much.

Nice avatar, btw.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Personally, I'd feel safer with our troops here in America, guarding airports, train stations, power plants, and the like.

-koji K.



ECK: Not to mention our borders.



Easterndiamondback: That won't happen. Both parties in the the pockets of immigration (legal and illegal) lobbies. One is afraid of being called racist, and the other wants a supply of future votes.


It's a damn shame, not to mention treasonous. Our nation is being invisibly invaded and we're too busy watching Michael Jackson aquire more kids, Kobe's trial and Brittney's maybe wedding to that leach of a dancer.

If we don't start addressing this problem now, and hold our representatives accountable, we're gonna be very, very sorry.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
What are you talking about?

The Phillipines government brought their soldiers home. Bush has a right to criticize them for doing so, just like I do. (I also criticize Spain for folding like a wet noodle earlier this year after their horrific terrorist attack.) Bush isn't forcing Phillipine troops to stay in Iraq by the barrel of a gun...

He is criticizing them for removing their people from Iraq. They dont want to have any more killed. I think they did the right thing. Bush shuouldnt be critcizing them (like he is to the French). He should do the same as the Philipines did.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Nice avatar, btw.



You a Braves fan?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Winston Churchill in 1936 told an American newspaper in reference to the US entry into World War I: "America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war, the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives."


Just a heads up on that quote. Winston Churchill denied saying it, though the editior of the newspaper then filed a lawsuit insisting he had. He dropped the case in 1942.
www.geocities.com...

To be honest it doesn't seem to tie in at all with Churchill's views during either WW1, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, and then left to fight in the trenches himself, or in 1936 when he was busy trying to get the free world to sit up and take notice of Hitler's war plans.

Churchill was always very pro US, being half American himself, and always saw strong ties between US and Britain.

not really relevant to the topic, but I thought I'd chip in with that.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
AD5673,

Bush can criticize whoever he wants. I think the more important thing is that Bush does not have any grounds to criticize anybody.

What I wish Bush would remember is that the Phillipines exists for the Phillipines, just like America exists for America. Bush has no right to complain, because the Phillipines are supposed to do what's best for their country, not some other country.

If Bush doesn't like it, that's his fault, nobody else's. Bush simply doesn't understand people and the world in general, and that says a lot about him. Unfortunately, the U.S. and the world is better off with him in office than John Kerry, but that's a whole different story for another time.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet
Just a heads up on that quote. Winston Churchill denied saying it, though the editior of the newspaper then filed a lawsuit insisting he had. He dropped the case in 1942.
www.geocities.com...


Thanks for pointing that out muppet. I was a little surprised myself. What I would like to know is regardless of who said it, is there any truth to what is actually being said?

See this thread History Buffs - Churchill - About that quote...



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
ECKs

I hate to break it to you but most of the free world criticized them not just President Bush.

It is a tough decision for a leader to have to make. On one hand nobody wants to see the barbaric murder of one of there citizens, on the other hand if you give into the demands of these lunatics you only encourage there barbarism.

In the phillipines the violence involving the muslim population is already a problem, you can only hope that this doesn't trigger a escalation in violence.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Nice avatar, btw.



You a Braves fan?


Absotively!



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
ECKs

I hate to break it to you but most of the free world criticized them not just President Bush.



The people of the Philippines spoke. Their leader finally listened. That's what leaders of Democratic governments are supposed to do, Sniper. This administration has disregarded the will of the people (all over the globe, for that matter) from day one. The arrogance is beyond abhorrent. Bush has no business leading a F@#*ing mule, let alone a free people.

CONCERNING THE CHURCHILL QUOTE

He said it. And I don't doubt for a second he denied saying it. If you want to see a side of Churchill history doesn't like to show, do some research on Iraq during Britain's occupation (back in the 20's). You'll see a side of him that will blow your mind. Hint: He ordered whole villages to be gassed. I suppose he thought it was the only way to put them down. The Iraqis hated the Brits' occupation with as much verocity as they now hate us.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join