Credit to Bush!!!

[toms]

I never thought i'd say this, but during his "suck up to everyone he's alienated" tour of europe Bush has actually made a few good points about some dodgy looking european decisions.

 

To my surprise he spoke up AGAINST resuming arms sales to china (which a number of european countries have been campaigning for).

 

He also made some valid points about the EU refusing to let countries like the Ukraine in (mainly because it would upset russia, but there are a few valid concerns too).

 

And finally he made a few points I would agree with to Putin about how he is basically a dictator who is pretending to be a democrat, due to his control of the media, etc...

(though i'm sure he didn't put it that bluntly, and he still seems to be pretty good mates with putin when push comes to shove).

 

I just thought that considering all the stick i have given him for his (mostly) bad decisions he deserved a bit of credit for getting a few things right this time.

[swphreak]

Too bad it wasn't where it was needed.

[SkinWalker]

If you throw enough darts, eventually you hit a bullseye.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by toms

To my surprise he spoke up AGAINST resuming arms sales to china (which a number of european countries have been campaigning for).

 

He's scared of the country that could crush the US economy.

 

 

 

Putin about how he is basically a dictator who is pretending to be a democrat, due to his control of the media, etc...

 

True that Putin is a dictator but under the circumstances, a totalitarian regime isn't always bad.

Look at China's regime. It is always on the verge of breakdown like the Soviet Union. When the USSR fell, it plunged its people into misery. You can just look at how eastern europe is these days.

 

China also is composed of many factions that could potentially cause the country to crash down on itself, drowning 1 billion individuals in a state similar to the one of modern Russia and ex-Soviet countries. Most of them have heavy economical problems.

 

So there is a choice to be made. Less individual freedom or starving society. Of course, the situation would restabilize itself but it would take a long time.

 

Besides, you don't just give democracy to people who have never known it. It isn't that easy.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by toms

To my surprise he spoke up AGAINST resuming arms sales to china (which a number of european countries have been campaigning for).

Well, they're going to become a major power eventually, might as well allow them to take us over.

 

Also, aren't a lot of people putting pressure on Putin?

 

But I agree, he's brought up a few good issues to deal with. But like Skin said, eventually you'll hit a mark.

 

 

My thing is we (America) shouldn't be trying to force western standards on other countries. Plus, overtime things tend to work themselves out, and a lot of times dictatorships aren't all that bad, they get the job done quite often. Not that I agree with limiting rights, but if it works for them and it makes them happy. I don't see a real problem. It's when you have a major event of protest going on and dead bodies starting to pile up because you want the power.

[kipperthefrog]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

He's scared of the country that could crush the US economy.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying that China has better economic standards than the us or something? I heard china is a comunist country. I heard comunist dispense the money equaly or something. If all that is true, than we would be better off dispensing the money equaly instead of letting the rich get richer?

[Spider AL]

The short answer Kipper is yes, communism is a perfectly laudable political ethic and in many ways, the idea of everyone having enough is superior to the capitalist ideal of a few people having everything and most people having little or nothing.

 

And let's not forget that communist societies have not been the great centres of evil that Reaganist morons would like us to believe, but have been at least as productive and as workable as many non-communist societies.

 

Having said all that, communism, like American democracy, is merely a theory. Nobody's ever put true, pure communism into practice, just as nobody's ever put true, pure democracy into practice.

 

As for any "props to Bush" sentiment, bog off. Bush is an utter chimp and anything he does right, he does out of either random ineptitude or because it serves the evil goals of his handlers in some subtle fashion.

[toms]

Wow, you guys are even more cynical than me!!

 

Its true that if you shoot enough darts you will get a few that hit the mark... but it also goes to show that not everything is black and white as far as some governments being always right and some always wrong.

 

Everyone, including the US has been keen (slightly too keen imho) to overlook some of china's human rights violations in order for their companies to tap into such a huge market/economy. But then again it is a valid way to attempt to bring democracy (though democracy and capitalism aren't as closely linked as people like to think, but anyway).

However I was a bit dismayed at how keen some countries were to start selling them arms.

Selling them mobile phones to help build relations and democracy is one thing, selling them guns and tanks that might be used on their own people is quite different. (and it is refreshing that the US isn't putting their economic interests first for once).

 

One of the most dismaying things about the War on Terror is that it has meant that the US and its allies have been willing to overlook evil regimes as long as they are evil regimes on OUR side, not on the terrorists side. The situation has even allowed a lot of such regimes to crack down on free speech and freedom campaigners by claiming they were terrorists.

Though I doubt Bush will push it with putin (not in his economic interests) it is good that the issue has at least been raised.

 

Though russia is a good example of how countries that aren't used to democracy tend to fall back into their old ways. "The good old days" factor.

 

Still, since my country has just swept aside 800 years of legal tradition to allow politicians to detain people without trial, and without even telling them what the charges are against them, i guess we can't talk...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/23/terror_bill_2005_analysis/

[lukeiamyourdad]

China has a communist government but their economical system is now almost fully capitalist, whatever people say. Same goes for Cuba and Vietnam. Only North Korea resists and look at how starving their people are.

 

 

I'd like to point out that European Communism is very different from Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was another form of dictatorship but european communism was simply an economical ideology.

No matter what crazy neo-cons tell you, you must be able to make the difference.

Or you'll falsely accuse communists as "people against freedom".

Which is a load of bull.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by toms

However I was a bit dismayed at how keen some countries were to start selling them arms.

Selling them mobile phones to help build relations and democracy is one thing, selling them guns and tanks that might be used on their own people is quite different. (and it is refreshing that the US isn't putting their economic interests first for once).

I think most governments are more than happy to allow this to happen, as it reduces the risk of China becoming an econimcal power. Plus if you look at history of interference, you'll notice most countries don't bother taking down "evil" people until they go after people in another country.

 

"It's fine if you kill your people, saves us the time. But when you kill someone elses people that's where we draw the line"

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Bush has done several great things. For example, he drastically lowered the amount of money you can sue a doctor for.

 

Now, I still hate him, but it's vital to see the other side as well.

 

I'd like to point out that European Communism is very different from Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was another form of dictatorship but european communism was simply an economical ideology.

I'd like to point out that surely you mean theoretical commuism or past communism? Because there's no such thing as applied communism in Europe anymore. Even in the most socialistic countries, like Norway, the government owns "only" 10% of industry, companies, land, etc.

 

Arms sale is a bad thing, really. Selling F-16 fighters to allies? Fair. Selling land mines or SCUDs or anthrax to countries in the Third World? Less fine.

 

However I was a bit dismayed at how keen some countries were to start selling them arms.

Let's not forget that the USA, too, has been heavily engaged in arms sales. Bush's dad sold a ton of weapons to Saddam Hussein, even.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I'd like to point out that surely you mean theoretical commuism or past communism? Because there's no such thing as applied communism in Europe anymore. Even in the most socialistic countries, like Norway, the government owns "only" 10% of industry, companies, land, etc.

 

Yes I do mean past communism. There was a huge communist movement back in the years that had nothing to do with soviet communist dictatorship.

[toms]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Let's not forget that the USA, too, has been heavily engaged in arms sales. Bush's dad sold a ton of weapons to Saddam Hussein, even.

 

Which is probably why i was so surprised he was against it this time.

 

Really, Communism & Capitalism aren't political ideals, they are economic ones. Dictatorships & democracies are the political sides.

Most previous communist countries were communist disctatorships, but it should in theory be possible to have a communist democracy... in the same way that we now have a number of capitalist dictatorships (modern china/russia).

The inherent chaos of capitalism does probably make it slightly more resistant to dictatorship, but one only has to look at countries like the US to see that a different kind of ruling elite can spring up.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Yes I do mean past communism. There was a huge communist movement back in the years that had nothing to do with soviet communist dictatorship.

I figured as much;) .

 

Which is probably why i was so surprised he was against it this time.

Maybe he got scared after another close victory and is now desperately catering to the pacifists? But then again, if that was so he wouldn't be considering "action" against Iran, would he?

[toms]

he doesn't really have to appeal to anyone now, since he can't get elected again anyway...

 

Which is why i expected him to go even more hardline than before, but suprisingly he seems to be trying to mend a few bridges, and is showing at least a tiny (very tiny, but better than nothing) interest in things like the middle east peace process.

[Kurgan]

Originally posted by Spider AL

The short answer Kipper is yes, communism is a perfectly laudable political ethic and in many ways, the idea of everyone having enough is superior to the capitalist ideal of a few people having everything and most people having little or nothing.

 

And let's not forget that communist societies have not been the great centres of evil that Reaganist morons would like us to believe, but have been at least as productive and as workable as many non-communist societies.

 

Having said all that, communism, like American democracy, is merely a theory. Nobody's ever put true, pure communism into practice, just as nobody's ever put true, pure democracy into practice.

 

As for any "props to Bush" sentiment, bog off. Bush is an utter chimp and anything he does right, he does out of either random ineptitude or because it serves the evil goals of his handlers in some subtle fashion.

 

Well one problem I can see with communism is that it tends to churn out dictatorships which murder millions of their own citizens. States that people risk their lives to flee from.

 

Don't get me wrong, "corporate fat cats" and poverty aren't any fun either, but there's plenty of communist countries that can't (or won't) even feed their own citizens, in the supposed class-less society.

 

 

Still, China is not a good example of a communist state. Maybe when Mao was alive (and he killed plenty of his own people through his actions), but in recent years they've done away with a lot of the tenants of communist thought, for good or for ill. For example they have some free market practices, they allow some religious expression, and they even gave people some private property rights (at least on paper).

 

Sure, they're still a brutal police state, but they're not purely communist anymore (if they ever were).

 

Communism is a political system, a philosophy, AND an economic system. Marx & Engles thought their system was inevitable in history and applicable (and desirable) for the whole world. Of course the way in which those ideas are applied has not always been the same.

 

The old joke goes that you can't get two communists to agree on anything. You have Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Castroites (?), etc. Basically for every state out there you have somebody saying "let's do it like <name of leader>" does it! That's the best way! Everybody puts their own spin on "Communism."

 

Then there's socialist ideas that get used by various states that aren't really communist. But anyway, you see the problem. Nobody agrees how to put the Communist Manifesto into practice, or we wouldn't have so many different versions of it out there. Then again, critics of Communism would say that Marx & Engles's ideas are simply out of touch with our modern world. They may have seemed like great ideas in the 19th century, but now they just don't work, and that's why each group changes and twists it to whatever they want, because on paper there just isn't enough to go on for it to work in the real world.

 

Philosophically there's the issue of "well since greedy peope rule the country now, let's change it so that we have other people in control and we'll give them ultimate power and they'll fix everything, then they'll step aside after they've fixed all the problems and people will work for the good of mankind instead of for profit or power." (Ie: Star Trek The Next Generation). Sounds good right? Also sounds like something that would never happen in a million years because there are always people who will try to take advantage once they get the power.

 

Every economic system and government has problems, some more than others. But I get a kick out of hearing somebody say that the US is a horrible freedomless soceity ruled by the rich, etc etc, then turning around and praising communist societies and dictatorships.

 

 

Are dictatorships efficient? Perhaps in some areas they are. But I'd say it's still only good for some (ie: those in power).

 

Maybe a dictatorship is fine for somebody who doesn't say or do anything against the state, never tries to buck the system, never tries to be different or stand out, and if that's the life they want to live... but then again, if you have a maniac in charge or they want to make an example out of someone, you're still not safe.

 

Freedom comes with a price, but I think in general it's a price worth paying. And no the US isn't perfectly free, nor are its leaders free from corruption, but I'd still rather live here than China.

[Spider AL]

Well one problem I can see with communism is that it tends to churn out dictatorships which murder millions of their own citizens.

Non "communist" dictatorships that murder millions are no better, and there are many examples of such, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

And of course, it's important to note that the societies you're referring to have been just that- dictatorships. Tyrannical regimes hiding behind the thin cloak of a "justice for all" ideology. To call them "communism" is frankly insulting to true communist ideals.

 

Just as benevolent dictatorships can be extremely pleasant for a populace to live in, so too could a benevolent, i.e. truly, communist society. So too could a benevolent capitalist society.

 

But human beings aren't benevolent. We're petty, self-interested, self-aggrandising, grasping, bald chimpanzees. The few of us that impose a code of honour upon ourselves are always prey for those chimps who haven't such a code. And that's society, regardless of what pseudo-ideology the government decides to spout to disguise its invariably malevolent intentions.

 

Every economic system and government has problems, some more than others. But I get a kick out of hearing somebody say that the US is a horrible freedomless soceity ruled by the rich, etc etc, then turning around and praising communist societies and dictatorships.

Oh, if you think you've heard me praise any particular society in this thread, you're mistaken. And America IS a horrible society ruled by the rich, etc. etc.

 

As for freedom... to my mind the American public is in the main so utterly devoid of the capacity to make rational, informed appraisals of the world around them... that they may as well be physically imprisoned. They're certainly mentally imprisoned.

 

And no the US isn't perfectly free, nor are its leaders free from corruption, but I'd still rather live here than China.

I'm glad we're clear that your leaders are corrupt. So are the leaders in the UK...

 

But I'd still rather live here than in the US. Big dogs have little dogs, etcetera.

[Vikinor]

I heard from this weirdo teacher that America is a republic and not a democracy. And not all ex-communist countries are poor. I heard Russia is doing kind of well with its economy now.

[lukeiamyourdad]

America IS a republic. A republic has its people vote for representatives who then rules the country. They vote on the laws.

 

A real democracy is where every citizen would vote for the laws, not the representatives.

 

 

And Russia doing good? They're doing better but I wouldn't say they're doing good.

[Vikinor]

Who is Putin? And how with all those Vodka shipments is Russia not doing good. Why do most Americans think the U.S. is a Democracy and not a Republic? It says in the pledge "and to the republic" I think the U.S. is a Repocracy so that way I agree with the pledge and the American people.

[Rogue15]

I LOVE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

we got bombs, happy meals, and grenades!

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by VikingLarz

Who is Putin? And how with all those Vodka shipments is Russia not doing good. Why do most Americans think the U.S. is a Democracy and not a Republic? It says in the pledge "and to the republic" I think the U.S. is a Repocracy so that way I agree with the pledge and the American people.

 

Russia is only doing better then it was under Yeltsin. It's still recovering, far from doing "good". They have to import food yet Russia is known to have great plains perfect for growing cereals and such.

 

Oh and just so you know, a Republic is a form of Democracy.

 

Go do a little research for god's sake.

[Vikinor]

A Republic and a Democracy are two different types of governments though.

[lukeiamyourdad]

And? America is a Republic, no matter what some might think.

[Vikinor]

I think it is a Republic. I am just saying that most Americans thinkit is a Democracy.