The Anti-Empire Report October 1st, 2010

[Coito ergo sum]

The countries and the ideology he espouses tends to not to be too fond of the first amendement either.

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

[Robert_S]

Obama: "We also know from experience that those who defend these [universal] values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights — whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments — have chosen to be our adversaries."=bullshit. Same point being made in the article. The US has allied with some of the most vile governments in recent history.

...some of whom end up choosing to be our enemies.

To be fair, Saddam Hussein may well have accidentally become our enemy. If I recall, we didn't really give him a face-saving way to get out of Kuwait.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama: "We also know from experience that those who defend these [universal] values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights — whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments — have chosen to be our adversaries."=bullshit. Same point being made in the article. The US has allied with some of the most vile governments in recent history.

...some of whom end up choosing to be our enemies.

To be fair, Saddam Hussein may well have accidentally become our enemy. If I recall, we didn't really give him a face-saving way to get out of Kuwait.

Not sure why we would give him a face saving way to get out of Kuwait. He annexed it, and brutalized its people.

[Robert_S]

Obama: "We also know from experience that those who defend these [universal] values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights — whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments — have chosen to be our adversaries."=bullshit. Same point being made in the article. The US has allied with some of the most vile governments in recent history.

...some of whom end up choosing to be our enemies.

To be fair, Saddam Hussein may well have accidentally become our enemy. If I recall, we didn't really give him a face-saving way to get out of Kuwait.

Not sure why we would give him a face saving way to get out of Kuwait. He annexed it, and brutalized its people.

The annexing part was novel, but I don't think we had ever shown much serious displeasure at his brutalizing people.

[sandinista]

The countries and the ideology he espouses tends to not to be too fond of the first amendement either.

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

I guess two things here. What "dictators" do I "support"? Secondly, to me it is not a question of "dictator" as opposed to "something else". I think one person/party rule is much the same as two person/party rule when the two parties have the same ideology. I am not convinced that "elections" for representatives of the upper class is really a viable alternative or even that much different than one party rule. If the one party is working for the betterment of his/her people then I see that as better than a two party/one ideology system working for the betterment of the upper classes.

[JimC]

The countries and the ideology he espouses tends to not to be too fond of the first amendement either.

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

I guess two things here. What "dictators" do I "support"? Secondly, to me it is not a question of "dictator" as opposed to "something else". I think one person/party rule is much the same as two person/party rule when the two parties have the same ideology. I am not convinced that "elections" for representatives of the upper class is really a viable alternative or even that much different than one party rule. If the one party is working for the betterment of his/her people then I see that as better than a two party/one ideology system working for the betterment of the upper classes.

And thus is produced the Stalins of this world...

Also, there are some Parlamentary representatives of the Labour Party in Australia (currently in government) that would offer you a knuckle sandwich upon being described as "representatives of the upper class"

[sandinista]

The countries and the ideology he espouses tends to not to be too fond of the first amendement either.

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

I guess two things here. What "dictators" do I "support"? Secondly, to me it is not a question of "dictator" as opposed to "something else". I think one person/party rule is much the same as two person/party rule when the two parties have the same ideology. I am not convinced that "elections" for representatives of the upper class is really a viable alternative or even that much different than one party rule. If the one party is working for the betterment of his/her people then I see that as better than a two party/one ideology system working for the betterment of the upper classes.

And thus is produced the Stalins of this world...

Also, there are some Parlamentary representatives of the Labour Party in Australia (currently in government) that would offer you a knuckle sandwich upon being described as "representatives of the upper class"

Yah...stalin Sorry, don't know a lot about Australian politics. Really all I know of Australia is Nick Cave and Tim Minchin. I'm sure there are others in the forum that know everything about every country...geniuses you know. If something good is happening in Australia, great, glad to hear it.

[Trolldor]

If you're going to be passing judgement on the actions of a nation as if you speak from a position of authority, then the least you could have is some international awareness.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama: "We also know from experience that those who defend these [universal] values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights — whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments — have chosen to be our adversaries."=bullshit. Same point being made in the article. The US has allied with some of the most vile governments in recent history.

...some of whom end up choosing to be our enemies.

To be fair, Saddam Hussein may well have accidentally become our enemy. If I recall, we didn't really give him a face-saving way to get out of Kuwait.

Not sure why we would give him a face saving way to get out of Kuwait. He annexed it, and brutalized its people.

The annexing part was novel, but I don't think we had ever shown much serious displeasure at his brutalizing people.

We had shown plenty of displeasure. However, what would you have considered serious? Invade the place? Who else WAS showing "serious" displeasure?" France? Germany? Russia? Who? And, if the US had done anything "serious" regarding the internal affairs of Iraq in 1990, what would the world reaction have been? "Good for you, US! Crush that son-of-gun, Hussein! Meddle in Iraq's internal affairs! And, of course, we believe that Hussein is the murdering monster the US says he is...so, here's 50,000 troops to contribute to the effort!" The US had stopped dealing with him generally, and stopped selling him weapons - why do you think that Husseins military was full of MiG airplanes, Chinese tanks, AK-37s and munitions purchased from France, Russia and China? Iraq wasn't flying F-15s, driving Abrams tanks, and firing M-16s, etc. - who do you think was supplying those? The US?

[Coito ergo sum]

The countries and the ideology he espouses tends to not to be too fond of the first amendement either.

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

I guess two things here. What "dictators" do I "support"?

My impression is Castro and Chavez to name two. But, you get around it by claiming they are something other than dictators. If it squawks about socialism, you give it a pass. At least that's the impression I get. You can easily correct that misapprehension, if you so choose, with a clear statement to the contrary.

Secondly, to me it is not a question of "dictator" as opposed to "something else". I think one person/party rule is much the same as two person/party rule when the two parties have the same ideology. I am not convinced that "elections" for representatives of the upper class is really a viable alternative or even that much different than one party rule.

So...just go to one party rule is your suggestion? Have done with it?

If the one party is working for the betterment of his/her people then I see that as better than a two party/one ideology system working for the betterment of the upper classes.

One party has never been shown to work for the betterment of his/her people. They SAY they do. But, they don't. Betterment of the party BECOMES betterment of the people.

Many people in the US in the 1920s and 30s were convinced that the Soviet method was for the betterment of the people, and they were positive that the negative reports about poverty and oppression in Russia was western capitalist propaganda. They learned better. There aren't too many people who cling to the notion that Soviet Russia bettered the lives of the people in comparison to western Europe or North America.

[sandinista]

If you're going to be passing judgement on the actions of a nation as if you speak from a position of authority, then the least you could have is some international awareness.

Like I said, some people know EVERYTHING about EVERY COUNTRY...fucking geniuses!

[Animavore]

Wait! Chavez is a dictator now?
Anyway, the guy's a legend. So's Castro.

[sandinista]

The countries and the ideology he espouses tends to not to be too fond of the first amendement either.

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

I guess two things here. What "dictators" do I "support"?

My impression is Castro and Chavez to name two. But, you get around it by claiming they are something other than dictators. If it squawks about socialism, you give it a pass. At least that's the impression I get. You can easily correct that misapprehension, if you so choose, with a clear statement to the contrary.

Secondly, to me it is not a question of "dictator" as opposed to "something else". I think one person/party rule is much the same as two person/party rule when the two parties have the same ideology. I am not convinced that "elections" for representatives of the upper class is really a viable alternative or even that much different than one party rule.

So...just go to one party rule is your suggestion? Have done with it?

If the one party is working for the betterment of his/her people then I see that as better than a two party/one ideology system working for the betterment of the upper classes.

One party has never been shown to work for the betterment of his/her people. They SAY they do. But, they don't. Betterment of the party BECOMES betterment of the people.

Many people in the US in the 1920s and 30s were convinced that the Soviet method was for the betterment of the people, and they were positive that the negative reports about poverty and oppression in Russia was western capitalist propaganda. They learned better. There aren't too many people who cling to the notion that Soviet Russia bettered the lives of the people in comparison to western Europe or North America.

Well..Chavez was elected, so not a dictator. As for Castro, I don't think he's 100 percent good (who is) but he hasn't been that bad either. Certainly better than many US presidents. So...when you say:

That's what confuses me about sandinista - he has a serious beef with dictatorships and rightfully descries US support for dictatorships, but the guys he supports are dictators.

What you mean is : Sandinista doesn't HATE Castro. Thats it. As opposed to "the guys he supports are dictators". Quite the difference.

[Trolldor]

You can still be a dictator even when elected.

[sandinista]

well, if anyone would know it would be you. Clearly a genius who knows the political ins and outs of 195 countries. Where do you find the time. If I have any questions about politics anywhere on the earth I'll be sure to come to you. Wow, I'm impressed.