Quote from mhashe:
Getting rid of Musharraf will only destabilze that region in a major way. When you have a vast majority of the population living in abject below subsistence level poverty and high illiteracy rates, democracy is a panacea that does not work. Except for India ( which is still very poor) I can not think of any other poor nation in that part of the world that has succeeded economically while being democratic. In poor countries democracy usually equates to desperation, rampant corruption and cronyism which are destaliblizing forces if not checked by "benign" strongmen leaders like Musharraf.
When it comes to North Korea, it's a threat because so little of its inner statecraft is known. With the capitalistic influence of the new China encroaching at its borders, if sanctions were lifted, I suspect sooner rather than later we would see changes towards a positive outcome. After all, there is no one to prop up their medieval ideology and they too most likely want to be 'gloriously rich".
I think you'll agree with me when I say that the U.N is as useful as its security council deems it necessary. It's nothing but a tool for its powerful members. With the rise of regional economic and political zones, it might very well become irrelevant in the not too distant future.
Quote from science_trader:
It says it all....
And you will come back once again that you are not influenced ? Is that a joke ?
By the way, I'm still waiting for this list of countries...or should we officially recognize that US interventions haven't had any good effect throughout the years ?
Perhaps getting rid of Pervez Musharraf in the next years ? A new typical example of the US helping a dictator for its own interests ?
Perhaps attacking North Korea, which is a REAL threat if you compare it to Saddam's Iraq...
By the way, there is one organisation that should be a superpower, it's the UN. But as long as the US hinder the UN to do anything, the situation won't change. And please don't tell me the UN is doing nothing...nothing for the US perhaps...
Quote from Hamlet:
You are waiting for a list of countries that have been benefited by US actions? I wish you would have read my posts... I referred to many situations where countries of the world have been benefited.
You say that I am influenced by the fact that I am living in the US, but I tell you again, I am not 100% pro US in all of its policies, domestic and foreign, but I can objectively say without doubt that the positives outweigh the flaws. It is hard to see your viewpoint that there is no need for a balance of power in the world. I think that perhaps it is you who are influenced, my friend.
Where is the joke in taking the role of aiding free and sovereign nations in their fight against those seeking to take that freedom?
Why is it a joke to say that there is always "good" and "evil" and that "evil" must be balanced by "good"? These are relative terms of course, there is always greater and lesser evils, or greater and lesser goods, but a good way to judge would be to say which is better for mankind? So which outcome was better for mankind in WW2? Why is it a joke look at a war between Nazi Germany and much of Europe and cite this as an example of "good" triumphing over "evil"? Certainly a forces seeking to take down governments and expand territory is worse than those which are defending themselves.
According to you the world does not need balances of power. According to you everytime that balance is tipped in favor of an aggressor we should be isolationists. We should not aid our allies. We did not need to defeat Nazism. We did not need a cold war. Kuwait did not need to be liberated from Iraq. South Korea did not neet to be defended against the North. America has no right to defend itself against her enemies. Again, it seems clear that it is YOU who are influenced.
Quote from science_trader:
If you prefer to see it this way, this is your problem. You will for sure live very happy with this kind of conviction.
The joke is you are still believing in what you hear... that the US is the good and the others the evil. That is so funny to hear that it says it all.
And please, do not interpret my saying, I really do prefer.
Quote from science_trader:
You didn't give me any answer to my question : 'give us a list of nations where US interventionism has brought freedom, peace and (or) true democracy'.
Quote from Hamlet:
You don't acknowledge any example I gave you over and over, so I ask you now - do you wish US did not react and intervene in ww2 to join allies, liberate europe and defeat Hitler?
Quote from science_trader:
You didn't give any list... you see... and haven't been able to understand that all these countries were already strong democracies and that the US haven't been the ONE to defeat nazis, but have been part of the countries who defeated them, most of the work having been made by the communists.
But I'm sure you've been taught all through your studies that the US have been the one and only one to defeat the nazis...
Quote from science_trader:
You didn't give any list... you see... and haven't been able to understand that all these countries were already strong democracies and that the US haven't been the ONE to defeat nazis, but have been part of the countries who defeated them, most of the work having been made by the communists.
But I'm sure you've been taught all through your studies that the US have been the one and only one to defeat the nazis...