McDemocracy : Would You Like Fries With Your Freedom, Sir?

After having looked back at all the times that America has stepped it's big foot in the doggy doo of the world to interfere, or as some people call it, assist in giving other countries democracy one has to wonder just what kind of fools we must be for our American dream being one size fits all for the rest of the world towards leading others towards democracy as a political ideology where there was no choice before because of the previous dictatorial nonsense, whether it was Communist, Monarchy, or a Repbulic.

Is democracy really that plain and simple to be given away as a McDonalds franchise?

What on Earth happened to other people of other countries actually shedding their own blood to get their country back from the ruthless butthead dictator where we as a country have to step in and assist or interfere as the rest of the world seems to refer to it?

Sorry, I do not want my country giving out the war machine and money of our country to defend people who do not want to try it on their own first, but I am not stating to not assist them at all but to me it sure as Hell would show a need more for it if the people were out there trying to overthrow their own idiotic regime and being killed for the process, because that would mean it was really needed, otherwise we are being sold a lie.

When democracy is something so fairly spread out to every corner of the world like a McDonalds franchise, it cheapens its meaning, at least to me, in that too much of a good thing is out there with not a lot of people actually trying to achieve it on their own. Would McDonalds let you give away one of their franchises? Hell no, because they would go out of business if they considered something like that, so what makes America, the Government more specifically, think it has the special right to give away democracy at the cost of trillions of taxpayers dollars, and letting our soldiers get killed for other people's needs in a needless war?

Am I stating I really want those other countries people to die?

Hell no.

Am I stating I want other countries controlled by ruthless dictators?

Hell no.

Am I stating I believe we are wasting our soldiers live for nothing?

Hell yes.

Am I stating I believe our Government is wasting our tax money?

Hell yes.

When will we as a nation allow other people to fight their own fight for once, not get mixed up in some foreign war where we are not needed nor are we wanted?

I could have sworn America was born because of the need to overthrow tyranny.

So, by us getting involved in the process holding the hands of Iraq, Afghanistan, or soon North Korea, or even Venezuela, are we in fact letting our Government speak for us in getting us and our soldiers killed because of their corporate greed for oil, resources, and land, or are we in fact enabling those countries and thereby weakening them through indoctrination of not being able to do it on their own and thereby weakening and diluting the process of democracy?

Democracy used to mean something to me.

Way back before we started giving it away like the prize in a Crack Jacks box.

Maybe, instead of giving it away at the cost of our taxpayers money and soldiers lives, we should back out and give advice, or maybe, just maybe, we should not get involved to begin with.

Does this sound isolationist? Probably to some people.

Does this sound harsh to some? Probably a little.

Does this sound a little out there? Probably just a tad.

I just think that when democracy is as easy as a phone call away and an air strike later, that the meaning of it is diluted down to almost nothingness, in that democracy, just like freedom has to in fact be won, not given away like a McDonalds franchise.

Would you like fries with your freedom, sir?

This entire thread and the current post was inspired because of my last post over here :

Blackwater : Right-Wing Conservative America, Whether You Like It Or Not...

Page 14

[edit on 19-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

I don’t think any first or second world countries have a democracy anymore it’s all corporatism. The need to train workers in order to turn a profit is the only thing that matters to government nowadays.

I'm not agreeing with my own statement, but that's truth with are current society for now.



[edit on 10/20/2009 by Big Oil]

[edit on 10/20/2009 by Big Oil]

Money, money, money...war is big business and since we (U.S) are capitalist we move right in where resources and potential for lucritive contracts exsists, I don't always agree but spreading the idea of democracy is like trying to convert somebody over to your religion, I feel like you (we/u.s) should provide example and then let the world make it's own mind up.

Originally posted by Big Oil
I don’t think any first or second world countries have a democracy anymore it’s all corporatism. The need to train workers in order to turn a profit is the only thing that matters to government nowadays.

I'm not agreeing with my own statement, but that's truth with are current society for now.



[edit on 10/20/2009 by Big Oil]

[edit on 10/20/2009 by Big Oil]

Exactly my point.

Democracy is being put out on an assembly line and given away far too easily.

Broadcast a little conflict, get the public behind it, even through surreptitious means, and sell, sell, sell.

Originally posted by alyosha1981
Money, money, money...war is big business and since we (U.S) are capitalist we move right in where resources and potential for lucritive contracts exsists, I don't always agree but spreading the idea of democracy is like trying to convert somebody over to your religion, I feel like you (we/u.s) should provide example and then let the world make it's own mind up.

I know what you mean because war is far more profitable than peace.

And the politicians would rather play that they are trying for peace, to stop war.

Good point about the religion aspect.

Democracy is not a religion, you cannot convert people to it, they need to want to believe.

Indoctrination via money, weapons, and McDemocracy.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Exactly my point. Democracy is being put out on an assembly line and given away far too easily. Broadcast a little conflict, get the public behind it, even through surreptitious means, and sell, sell, sell.

Do a search on the Trans Afghanistan pipeline, that might explain why there's a multitude of military forces in that country. I think main purpose behind both invasions (Iraq & Afghanistan) was to build a massive pipeline network that extends throughout the entire middle eastern continent. The next target for big oil is Iran and Pakistan.

The selling point here in North America is join the "war on terror" in the name of Democracy.

Nuff Said

Democracy cannot be given, spread, or bestowed on people or countries. This is a mistaken idea proliferated by the Bush era.

By definition, democracy is government BY THE PEOPLE, not usually something that one can peacefully acquire from a centralized power. It must start and be earned from within. It must be the people's idea and it must be claimed and taken, by force if necessary.

Freedom Fries

Originally posted by Big Oil
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Exactly my point. Democracy is being put out on an assembly line and given away far too easily. Broadcast a little conflict, get the public behind it, even through surreptitious means, and sell, sell, sell.

Do a search on the Trans Afghanistan pipeline, that might explain why there's a multitude of military forces in that country. I think main purpose behind both invasions (Iraq & Afghanistan) was to build a massive pipeline network that extends throughout the entire middle eastern continent. The next target for big oil is Iran and Pakistan.

The selling point here in North America is join the "war on terror" in the name of Democracy.

Nuff Said

I know all about the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline, both because I follow politics religiously, as well as it is in almost every single movie now, like they are taunting American's with it.

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been about nothing more than the oil we are trying so quickly to steal from Russia, France, China, and the rest of the world.

Once we are sitting pretty and owning all of that oil they are going after Venezuela next.

Like they need a reason to go after Hugo Chavez?

I believe the 2016 Olympics will be the perfect staging ground and reason behind building up a show of presence in Brazil, to be that much closer to Venezuela.

Remember the rumors of the property bought by the Bush family in Paraguay?

Yep, almost 100,000 acres, just the right size for a military installation, say Blackwater/Xe, or her sister company created out of thin air, Greystone.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Democracy cannot be given, spread, or bestowed on people or countries. This is a mistaken idea proliferated by the Bush era.

By definition, democracy is government BY THE PEOPLE, not usually something that one can peacefully acquire from a centralized power. It must start and be earned from within. It must be the people's idea and it must be claimed and taken, by force if necessary.

Freedom Fries

My point exactly, BH.

Democracy, is not something that can be given, spread, or bestowed, so the thought of us giving it to the people is a bogus double entendre.

Quote from Double Entendre

A double entendre or adianoeta is a figure of speech in which a spoken phrase is devised to be understood in either of two ways.

Often the first meaning is straightforward, while the second meaning is less so; often risqué, inappropriate, or ironic.

No, I did not put that quote there for you, BH, I put it there to explain the duplicitous meaning behind the politicians lies in Washington D.C., using double-speak they use euphemisms, double meanings, and innocuous words, hoping their lies will not be caught onto by what they consider the ignorant masses.

I love that you loved the reference to freedom and freedom fries, BH.

I used to work at McDonalds a long time ago, and I always thought the idea of an assembly line was cool when it came to flipping burgers, but not flipping McDemocracy.

Notice my double entendre?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Once we are sitting pretty and owning all of that oil they are going after Venezuela next.

Do you really believe we will get to this point of owning all that oil?




[edit on 8-8-2010 by jam321]

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Once we are sitting pretty and owning all of that oil they are going after Venezuela next.

Do you really believe we will get to this point of owning all that oil?
[edit on 8-8-2010 by jam321]

Well, when I say "we" I am not talking about you and I, but our Government.

And yes, I do believe our Government is going after Venezuela's oil, next.

Personally, I think Barack Obama blew the bid for the Olympics, on purpose.

Because where is the projected next Olympics going to happen in 2016?

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

In advance of the Olympics happening advance work is done on many levels.

The stadium where it will be performed in has to be upgraded.

Dignitaries have to have secure locations.

And our own President has advance work done by the Secret Service.

Remember the 100,000 acres Bush allegedly purchased?

It was in Paraguay.

Interesting is it not the relative proximity between Paraguay, Brazil, and Venezuela?

Logistically speaking in regards to pre-staging a potential war.

Especially since we have the Tran-Texas Corridor being built.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by alyosha1981
Money, money, money...war is big business and since we (U.S) are capitalist we move right in where resources and potential for lucritive contracts exsists, I don't always agree but spreading the idea of democracy is like trying to convert somebody over to your religion, I feel like you (we/u.s) should provide example and then let the world make it's own mind up.

I know what you mean because war is far more profitable than peace.

And the politicians would rather play that they are trying for peace, to stop war.

Good point about the religion aspect.

Democracy is not a religion, you cannot convert people to it, they need to want to believe.

Indoctrination via money, weapons, and McDemocracy.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Great thread. I agree that democracy is not something that we should be pushing onto other nations. They have to want it for themselves before it will have any real meaning. Much like rehab for a drug addict, it only works if the addict has already made the decision that he wants to be free of drugs. If he's not ready to quit, he won't and no amount of rehab is going to change that.

As far a war being more profitable than peace, well I'm not completely convinced of the absolute validity of that statement. Although, I do agree that at first glance, the theory certainly seems to contain a certain amount of truth. I wonder if this isn't because we haven't given peace a level playing field on which to compete. I mean, why is it that we have a "Department of War" but no "Department of Peace?"

I really believe that war is the tool used to set up the stage for the next puppet show and TPTB have managed to transform this tool into an enormously profitable business. Ike warned us about it, did he not?

It's just that common sense tells me that peace, if given the chance, should be more profitable if for no other reason than the fact that we would no longer be devoting limitless resources and lives for destructive purposes. One would think that more profits could be reaped through constructive means than those derived from death and destruction. War may indeed be more profitable for a few but at the expense of the masses.

I think it was John Lennon who said that we should "Give Peace A Chance" and I couldn't agree with him more. I would "imagine" that we would be gleefully surprised to discover that "Peace" is the most profitable business on earth.

So I guess the real question is, "More profitable for whom?"

This also begs the question...
If Israel's government succeeds in forcing the Jewish oath onto its citizens, then does that nullify its own Declaration of Independence, which guarantees religious freedom? Does it then turn Israel into something other than a "democracy"?

And, furthermore, if so, then where will America stand with Israel? Will it continue to support a country that is a fascist or theocratic state?

Sounds like someone's not buying into the neocon agenda. Read the "New American Century" and you'll see the whole push for democracy has little to do with spreading "freedom" and more to do with dominating other nations natural resources. Big $$ to be made spreading "democracy".

reply to post by Flatfish


It is not so much democracy being foisted on others, although there is that, it is that it is used as a viable excuse.

An excuse to step onto foreign soil we have no business involving our soldiers lives or tax money upon.

I do agree they have to want it, the foreign country, but their voices are often silent, and our politicians play on this.

But I will say dictators like Saddam Hussein do use the fear of death squads, the snitches, and scarcity of food.

The problem is because these people are caught between a rock and a hard place, between a dictator, and a nation willing to abuse this to exploit the media as well as the world's opinion, in the World Court of Public Opinion.

When I say war is profitable I'm not saying it is for you or I but for those making war manufacturing equipment.

In other words, the Military Industrial Complex and henchmen, in the Pentagon and Department of Defense.

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce162ff8ff28.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

This bold and important book strives to be a practical "strategy for a Second American Century."

In this brilliantly argued work, Thomas Barnett calls globalization "this country’s gift to history" and explains why its wide dissemination is critical to the security of not only America but the entire world.

As a senior military analyst for the U.S. Naval War College, Barnett is intimately familiar with the culture of the Pentagon and the State Department (both of which he believes are due for significant overhauls).

He explains how the Pentagon, still in shock at the rapid dissolution of the once evil empire, spent the 1990s grasping for a long-term strategy to replace containment.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Barnett argues, revealed the gap between an outdated Cold War-era military and a radically different one needed to deal with emerging threats.

He believes that America is the prime mover in developing a "future worth creating" not because of its unrivaled capacity to wage war, but due to its ability to ensure security around the world.

Further, he believes that the U.S. has a moral responsibility to create a better world and the way he proposes to do that is by bringing all nations into the fold of globalization, or what he calls connectedness.

Eradicating disconnectedness, therefore, is "the defining security task of our age."

His stunning predictions of a U.S. annexation of much of Latin America and Canada within 50 years as well as an end to war in the foreseeable future guarantee that the book will be controversial. And that's good.

The Pentagon's New Map deserves to be widely discussed.

Ultimately, however, the most impressive aspects of the book is not its revolutionary ideas but its overwhelming optimism.

Barnett wants the U.S. to pursue the dream of global peace with the same zeal that was applied to preventing global nuclear war with the former Soviet Union.

High-level civilian policy makers and top military leaders are already familiar with his vision of the future—this book is a briefing for the rest of us and it cannot be ignored.

--Shawn Carkonen

You are correct a Department of Defense sure means we're not looking for peace.

The Pentagon's New Map

Video is 1 hour 23 minutes long

Ike did warn us about the Military Industrial Complex alright and it seems it fell on deaf ears.

Eisenhower - Military/Industrial Complex - Part 1 of 2


Eisenhower - Military/Industrial Complex - Part 2 of 2


Unfortunately, the alchemists of the Middle Ages never figured out turning lead into gold, but the nefarious Military Industrial Complex did, and they are the modern day alchemists, turning war profiteering into an all time turn around monetary investment, towards keeping the rich rich, and the poor dying on the battlefields, defending their countries for a lie.

War is a means to decry peace at the expense of other people's lives in the middle of nowhere in a land no one gives a damn about, except those trying desperately trying to keep the foreign invaders from occupying for any length of time.

As well as a means of using politics through the extension of warfare to maintain population control.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
This also begs the question...
If Israel's government succeeds in forcing the Jewish oath onto its citizens, then does that nullify its own Declaration of Independence, which guarantees religious freedom? Does it then turn Israel into something other than a "democracy"?

And, furthermore, if so, then where will America stand with Israel? Will it continue to support a country that is a fascist or theocratic state?

edit on 13-10-2010 by thegoodearth because: spelling

I would be interested in reading more on this if you have some links to supply.

As far as America standing with Israel I described it in another thread, seen here.

I think there is little to nothing which will ever separate America and Israel.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Sounds like someone's not buying into the neocon agenda. Read the "New American Century" and you'll see the whole push for democracy has little to do with spreading "freedom" and more to do with dominating other nations natural resources. Big $$ to be made spreading "democracy".

I've never bought into anyone else's agenda ever because it is usually full of propaganda and greed.

I will have to see if the library has a copy of that to check it out.

I know for a fact that the push for democracy is nothing but a convenient lie to sell war doctrines.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Certainly, sir. I respect your opinions, and would like your thoughts.
Links below to threads here, which aren't very active (strange, haha), and link up with the news articles:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, an update on Sharon.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by thegoodearth


My reply to the first thread is seen below in the post link.

SKL's reply to Nathwa : re :Israeli Loyalty Oath

I will get around to replying to the other threads as soon as possible.

Perhaps though I am missing something within the interpretation of Israeli law.

I do not see that much of a controversy.

The tyranny of democracy is not more benign than the tyranny of a dictatorship. It is not democracy that is the lynch pin of freedom, it is the protection of unalienable rights that are the lynch pin of freedom. The ability to elect political officials has no meaning if the people are subject to the whims of those officials, and have no redress of grievance nor the rule of law to rely upon in terms of asserting their unalienable rights.

Beware military industrial complexes that declare they are making the world safe for democracy. Take note of the recent constitution written by the Iraqi people. Here is a democracy, and yet a democracy where rights are granted by constitution and thus "stipulated" as opposed to being unalienable and granted by a higher authority than government:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.
C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

That was, in part, Section One. Now here is a taste of Section Two:

FIRST: Civil and Political Rights

Article 14: Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or opinion, or economic and social status.
Article 15: Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security and liberty. Deprivation or restriction of these rights is prohibited except in accordance with the law and based on a decision issued by a competent judicial authority.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Take note how these are "civil and political" rights granted by government, and as such subject to the whims of legislatures and judges.

So what that they have a democracy if they are still just subject to governmental whims? Is a democratic tyranny better than the single tyranny of Saddam Hussein? What have they gained, and what favors did the U.S. do for them?

Indeed, by "making the world safe for democracy" and by placing so much emphasis on "civil rights" The United States has gone from being the freest nation in the world to now having the largest prison population in the world. Democracy has not preserved and protected the inalienable rights of the people within the United States, what good will making the world safe for democracy do?

In this obsession with democracy, the American people, many who have learned what they know about U.S. politics from a public school system, have learned that they are free because they can elect their "leaders", and that they can protest and freely speak and write their "leaders" to complain about the situation, and are encouraged to vote, even "rock the vote", but once any one of them run afoul of the 600,000 plus acts of legislation on the books, they are then advised to consider taking a plea offer, where they will be convicted of a crime, but receive leniency, instead of taking advantage of the jury of their peers, and this advice is tragically often seen as sound, because the jury of their peers were also educated on American jurisprudence by the same public school system, which is to say, that by and large, the American people remain woefully ignorant of the law, but are rest assured they are free because they live in a democracy.