On the Thinker

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

For many Obama represents hope. In his inauguration speech he said something along the lines of we must embrace hope, not fear. Hope alone is not a sufficient medium for change. Hope can be embraced but action must supplement this hope. I can hope that I leave my shoddy job but until I do something to change my job status, I will be relegated to the same meager job.

The presence of Obama and his Kennedy like speaking abilities make him a proponent for change within the minds of millions of Americans. What I fear is that the hope that Obama speaks will not be coupled with action.

Bill Clinton centered his campaign upon one idea, one word. Change. History shows us that Clinton did not change anything. He cut off welfare aid to mothers, intervened in Bosnia and bombed Iraq to the tune of an estimated 1.3 million pounds of bombs.

Obama has already told us that he can not fulfill all of his campaign promises. Nancy Pelosi wants Bush tax cuts on wealthy rolled back which is something Obama promised but no word has been spoken of this.

Whether Obama truly wants to change America or whether he preached "change" simply to advance his political career and secure him the presidency is irrelevant. American freedom and democracy has been hijacked by a system whos members promote their own self interests above the interests of the majority. This system is composed of all our politicians, big buisnesses, lobbyists, etc.

This system is called the estabalishment by Howard Zinn. Until this system is drastically overthrown, the American people will remain slaves to a higher power. The Bill or Rights gives us the right to alter or abolish governmental regimes that do fit the needs of the people.

We as a nation need ot unite together and abolish the system and restore our freedoms and democracy. The system currently hides behind the façade of the flag. They disguise their own selfish motives behind the white, red and blue of the flag.

Terrorism. Really? Let's invade Iraq and make up the evidence, while Cheney's Halliburton stock increases 3000 percent! If i hear any more debate on terrorism i'm going to go insane.

Instead of watching reality Tv and American Idol fanatically, we need to pick up a book and learn about the history of the nation. The media is not a sufficent medium to learn the history or even the current events of the country. The CNN coverage of the inaguration spoke of the dinner that was being consumed at the luncheon and Michelle’s dress.

In America, ignorance is indeed bliss. Until we drastically change our lifestyle, America will continue to overexpand its resources and crash like all empires do. Until we pick up a book and learn of the tarnished history of the United States, from the 14 direct overthrows of foreign governments just in the last 100 years, the wars which began due to lies (Cold War, Korea, Mexican War, Iraq), the explotation of the citenzry due to the the imperialsitc and capilistic economy, the outsourcing of jobs, the political scandals (The IL. Governor and Dianne Wilkenson ring a current bell), the use of the IRS to silence political opponents in the mid 20th century, etc.

The Roman Empire, what some could consider the greatest empire of all, crashed because it overexpanded its resources and overtaxed its citizens. Sound familiar? The US has troops in 130 countries and 700 bases worldwide. A congressional committee has advocated a gas tax.

We will continue to be slaves to the system until we alter the system and restore democracy. Our freedoms have been hijacked. Our peers are dying in foreign lands. The question that more Americans need to ask is why? Terrorists don't hate our freedom. They hate that the United States has prevented them from attaining freedom.

Perfect examples are the incident in Iran in 1953,Castro's rise to power, due to the US cancelling elections in Cuba, sanctions on both Cuba and Iraq. Sanctions do nothing to hurt the leaders in charge, they after all control the resources. Remember when Albright said on a 60 minutes interview that 1/2 million dead children in Iraq due to sanctions was worth it?

It is our duty to stop this explotation and take the power back.


What are your thoughts?

P.S.-

Did you see Reverand Wright’s speech? When the white man will realize what’s right. Are you serious? A little racist, I’d say.

Thu Jan 22, 08:22:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

Chris you sound a lot like Ron Paul. You make many good points about the need to motivate people to hold their elected officials accountable and to learn more about our history. Yet, I am going to resist the temptation to give in to my cynicism and call the entire system corrupt. I would say that President Obama might prove us both wrong. I would also add that the people who hold elected office are put there by us, the people. So while some politicians may not always act ethically, even more people vote to keep them in office. That does not sound like a fault of the political establishment or the bureaucracy, but the lack of interest in politics in general by many people.
But I want to get back to some of the examples you provided. You said that terrorists are angry with us because we deny them their freedoms. I can see that being the case with those in Iraq and Afghanistan who believe our presence there to be illegitimate. But there are some extremists who are truly repressive and brutal. The hijackers on 9/11 were driven by religious convictions to commit acts of terror before the U.S. became an occupying force in Iraq or Afghanistan.
As for your examples of foreign interventions during the Cold War, some of what you say is questionable. I think the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Tehran in 1953 did lead to an eventual retribution campaign, culminating in the Shah's overthrow in 1978 and the explosion of anti-American sentiment. But in the context of the Cold War, the overthrows of these governments were in response to them nationalizing key resources. In the case of Iran, Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil reserves, was critical of the U.S., and had support of a small Iranian communist party. Castro's government in Havana nationalized all large farms and U.S. businesses in Cuba worth about $2 billion. He also began to make economic deals with the Soviets. American interests were at stake. Economic sanctions failed in these cases and more drastic action was taken. The basic notion here is that these countries attempted to nationalize key resources and assets, a form of protectionism, that we believed was harmful to capitalism. You might say that they were trying to protect themselves from exploitation, but these governments were terribly corrupt and repressive to their people. We now know for certain that communism is not the best way for a nation to prosper economically. Iran and Cuba would likely have prospered more from dealing with the U.S. if they had had a similar form of government, but they did not. From a policy standpoint, we were facing a powerful enemy and had to counter communist influence wherever it manifested. Once we develop a way to gain energy independence, we will not have to rely on these essential resources and can hopefully avoid having to factor them in our decision making.

Thu Jan 22, 11:41:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

Dearest Brady,

To use Obama’s word, I hope that Mr. President proves us both wrong. Good point on how the people are the ones who put the politicians in power. The point I was trying to make was that the people for the most part are ignorant fools. They are more caught up on the cost of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, what type of dog the Obama family will purchase and Joe the Plummer.

What attributes to this apparent ignorance? The masses do not possess the knowledge to vote correctly. If people realized what that their freedoms were being taken away from them, change could truly happen. According to a recent study only 1 out of every 7 people could point Iraq out on a map. Really? This is what democracy has come to? An uninformed public is electing leaders without knowing their stance on issues because the issues are never discussed at all. I vividly remember watching the political debates and watching in angst when the two candidates spoke of each how dirty each others campaign was.

The people enable the system because they are ignorant. We have a large portion of people voting who do not even know which party controls Congress. When elections come along, the candidates say a few things that sound well and these folly statements appeal to the masses. National health care was constantly discussed. But what is the probability of this becoming a reality? Realistically, maybe 0%?

I agree with you that the general lack of interest in politics in general is the downfall of democracy but it is also the fault of the system for hijacking this ignorance and suppressing the people. When a president steals an election, as was the case in 2004, is this the fault of the people or a byproduct of the system?

The media and the politicians present one side of the story. In order to become educated about what actually happened in many events, one must dig through historical research. Sadly, this is something the masses fail to do.

Extremists do exist in all places. When I mentioned terrorism it was more of a vent that something backed with evidence. The 9/11 hijackers were indeed religiously driven. Terrorists as a whole however are nearly five times more likely to come from a country in which the United States is or has occupied. I’m not saying that 9/11 was the fault of direct United States intervention. There were clearly many other factors at hand, such as religious convictions. But it can not be argued that United States intervention in the Middle East did not help the spread of terrorism. I’m not sure of the ages of the 9/11 hijackers but the United States has been an occupying force in Afghanistan for decades.

Our own government funded the Taliban. They provided them with vast amounts of funds and weapons. The increase in religious fervor in the Middle East, the Islamic Revolution that you refer to, was greatly helped along by the United States. Even after the Islamic Revolution, the US spent billions of dollars funding an Islamist jihad in Afghanistan.

When I said that terrorists hate us for our freedom, I was simply reiterating the words of Bush. The system has used fear to suppress the people in a forged war over oil. I agree with you 100% that we need to develop alternative energy sources. But when will this development begin? The system tells the people just enough so the alternative energy source debate will cease from public debate. If the oil drilling allotment passed recently by Congress is any indication, oil will remain the supreme energy source until every last drop of it is sucked out of the earth. Too much American capita is centered on oil.

I’m not sure which of foreign intervention examples are questionable. Mossadegh was not communist by any means. He was an individual who fervently believed in democracy. He sought to concentrate political power away from the monarch, the Shah and into the elected parliamentary. Political power through elected officials is the definition of democracy. As far as nationalizing the oil industry, Mossadegh did so because of the severe exploitation of the British controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Under a contract negotiated with the Shah, Iran was paid just 16 percent of the money it earned from selling the country’s oil. How is that fair?

As for Mossadegh’s claim that he had support of a small communist party is a faulty one. The communist party in Iran, known as Tudeh, was naturally in support of the nationalization project of the country but Mossadegh never embraced the communists and even excluded them from his government.

The American diplomat assigned to monitor Tudeh reported that the party was “well-organized but not very powerful.” The United States, led by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles, who just happened to be the head of the C.I.A at the time, created this communist connection.

Castro’s government nationalized all U.S businesses in Cuba due to the exploitation these entities were superimposing on the Cuban people. Castro sought to gain power in an election but when the United States backed dictator cancelled this election he was forced to overthrow the U.S friendly ruler. He began to make deals with the Soviet Union because of the threat that the U.S posed to his country and to his people. These governments may have been corrupt, but they were a much better alternative than what the United States businesses posed.

The United States claims to have been a prominent factor in helping Cuba gain its independence. Although this claim can greatly be undermined, evidence shows that the United States denied Cubans their freedom. First they forbid the independence celebration from Spain, then the U.S forced Cuba to sign the Platt Amendment which gave the U.S the right to maintain military bases on the island, the right to supervise the Cuban treasury, and the right to veto any treaty made by Cuba. How is this freedom?

From a policy standpoint, the enemy that we were facing (Communists) was an enemy partly based on the role of United States. During the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt recognized Stalin’s dominance in Poland and Eastern Europe in exchange for Stalin’s support for a United Nations. When the U.S began to ignore this agreement, some historians argue, the Cold War began. I am not condoning the actions of Soviet Union, or of the U.S for that matter. Both parties were fools. Rather than come to a diplomatic agreement, a nuclear war almost broke out.

“From a policy standpoint, we were facing a powerful enemy and had to counter communist influence wherever it manifested”

To prevent the Soviet Union from exerting their influence over Eastern Europe makes sense from a policy standpoint but what about Yalta? Can this diplomatic agreement simply be thrown out because the interests of the United States changed?

A communism centered economy as a theory works and it coincides with the goals found in the Bill of Rights, the right of life, liberty and happiness. Communism makes the notion of classes an obsolete one. The biggest threat that America has internally, is classism. We are a governmental system run by a plutocracy. The discrepancy between the top 10% highest earners and the remaining 90% percent of the population is a ghastly one. I would argue that the Soviet Union under Stalin was never truly communist in nature. A system was put in place to control the people. Stalin hid behind communism just as the U.S hides behind democracy.

The ideals advocated in a classless economic and communist system will never be implemented because it can not be achieved on a large scale and because the system need classes so they have someone to exploit.

When the politics of fear replace reason, the system is allowed to do as it pleases with minimal resistance. Until Americans realize that their freedoms and democracy have been taken away and continue to be taken away, all hope is lost.

Fri Jan 23, 01:27:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

We seem to agree that many people are ignorant of the real facts in politics, including many congressional leaders. But realistically, the only way to change that is to work with the system. The system has taken advantage of the fact that the masses aren't very interested. That resulted in a lack of oversight, which has led to violations of the Constitution by the Bush Administration and others before him, as well as an unchecked capitalism which we are now paying the price for. So I'm not sure what you want to be done. It sounds like you are calling for an overthrow of the system. If you can't motivate people to vote in elections or to stop watching reality TV, what are the chances that they are going to "retake their freedom" as you put it? Again, I think it will take someone to change the system back to how the Founders envisioned it. Bring back accountability, transparency, and regulation, and you will fix the financial gap between the rich and poor which has grown tenfold in the last two decades and you will fix many more problems at home and abroad.

Sure, occupying a country will undoubtedly increase the number of people who resist you. But I'll the use the Cold War again as my best example. We intervened in places that the Soviets were exerting influence. They were just as guilty in trying to spread communism and provide weapons to local tribes. The Islamic world declared jihad on the Soviets because of their invasion. If we had not taken action, the domino effect might have become a reality. In hindsight there might have been better options there, but this is another example of a short-term success. We funded the Taliban because it was convenient to do so at the time. The Middle East has been a source of contention for the United States and other great powers since after WWI. The resources there are so important to our productivity that we sometimes take actions that produce ill effects long-term. But resources, whether it be oil in the Middle East, or in the lands taken by imperialists, have enabled our nation and others to prosper. It may have been morally questionable, but it is easy to say that now that we are a global power and those critics are living much better than billions of people from exploited countries. Some of the rationale used has been used throughout history, "if we don't, they will" or "survival of the fittest." This may seem morally repugnant, but I would bet that each of us have used that reasoning in our daily lives to better our situation at the expense of another. This is but the other side of the coin, and a factor worth considering by people so critical of our actions particularly in the last century.

The points you raise about oil are all true, but there is another component; the market. We don't totally control the price of oil. The oil tycoons and sheiks know that if the price of a barrel of oil is too high, alternative energy looks appealing. But if they lower the price to record lows as they have in the past few months, it becomes too expensive to resume the search for alternative energy. We must find a way to break this deadlock. If we simply stopped using oil or started a massive program now to search for alternative fuels, we would go bankrupt.

The case in Iran is more complex. I never said Mossadegh was a communist, but he did have support from an Iranian communist party. It doesn't matter that he never supported the Tudeh, it matters that the Tudeh supported his policies, which were deemed to be the acts that precede a communist takeover. His radical policies lost him support of Shia clerics and of the traditional middle class, a middle class who benefited from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. True, the Dulles brothers probably exploited this fact, but by cutting off oil to the major powers, Mossadegh certainly got more than he bargained for. Again, we feared he might open his resources to the Soviets. The republican congress in charge no doubt saw this as a threat to us at the time. I'm not saying he deserved what he got, I am saying that in the context of the Cold War I can see why a key resource such as oil was so important to our national security. These were the factors our policy-makers considered. So again, short-term fix, long-term resentment.

The facts you present on Cuba are spot-on. But the same principle applies, a radical act such as nationalizing farm land was seen as a threat to the United States. Castro knew that he could approach the Soviets to get back at the U.S. Our policy of installing military strongmen in Latin America, like Batista in Cuba, surely kept the people oppressed, but it also protected our economic interests. We acted as we did to fight against communism and protect capitalism. This was a struggle over ideology. If we had not acted as we did, it is plausible that communism would have taken over in most places around the world, backed by a police state with the nuclear capability of enforcing a strangle-hold on the United States, the leader of the capitalist world. I'll get back to why that would have been the downfall of most global economies in a bit.

When Roosevelt arrived at Yalta, he was already at a disadvantage because the Red Army occupied a significant portion of Europe and Poland. Yet an agreement with Stalin was critically important, the political future of millions was at stake. Let's not forget that though many policies of the U.S. may have been questionable after World War II, it was Stalin, one of history's most lethal dictators, who wanted to strangle Germany in reparations and more, to which FDR and Churchill refused. Your forgetting a critically important part of the agreement between Roosevelt and Stalin regarding Eastern Europe and Poland. FDR didn't just "recognize Stalin's dominance" in these areas in exchange for UN support, he demanded that Stalin allow free elections in these areas. FDR, unlike many presidents before and after him, was truly democratic in that sense. Stalin agreed to the Declaration on Liberated Europe. Stalin would not allow elections in the Soviet Union but he promised to allow them in his sphere of Europe. Stalin also signed the Atlantic Charter when the Soviets entered the war. He in essence had agreed to many Wilsonian principles. The Soviet Union did not live up to many of these promises because it feared that it would lose its satellite states. So your argument that some historians believe the Cold War started when the United States didn't live up to its agreement with Stalin is false. The Cold War began because of the ideological division of Europe, agreed to by both sides with the division of Germany into occupation zones, the Marshall Plan to save Europe's economy, Stalin's heated political rhetoric denouncing capitalism, and Churchill's response with his "Iron Curtain Speech."

The communist theory is inherently centered on individual rights, a classless society, and the withering of the state altogether. But unfortunately it remains just that, a theory. There has never been a successful example of communism following those ideals. Many of Marx's predictions about communist revolutions simply never happened. This violent revolution against the capitalists should have happened in industrialized countries, but it didn't. It only happened in Russia. After the killer famine in 1921, Lenin nationalized industry. It did not work. Since peasants were no loner making profits on goods they sold, they had no incentive for market goods. Russia saw a reduction in production. Thus, Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy in 1921 which had some tenets of capitalism. This was an odd method for a communist country to try and solve its financial problems. The Soviet Union may not have totally embraced the theory of communism, but it is the best and longest-lasting example we have. In the end it failed. The workers lost incentives to work. By human nature, competition would occur and that competition is usually healthy. Most people are greedy, and communism provides no answer for that. A capitalist society tries to utilize that greed by allowing everyone to compete for resources. It is by no means perfect. But the solution to the growing gap between the rich and the poor is not to overthrow our capitalist masters and switch to communism. Communist countries have all been led by one-party states and most do not allow elections and abuse the rights of their peoples, not consistent with the Bill of Rights to say the least. The American democratic experiment has not failed. The purpose of the government is to provide some measure of "communism" to prevent capitalist greed-heads from running wild and widening the gap between the rich and poor. We need more government regulation on corporations to fix our problems. With a democratic president and democratic congress, we might actually be able to fix this mess.

Sat Jan 24, 01:29:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

This is a very lively debate.

It is greatly evidenced that your staunch viewpoints and I have mine. While we disagree on some of the interpretations of historical events, we both realize that change has to occur.


The issue with working within the system is that one often become a byproduct and a member of the very same system they are trying to change. The system allows its members to live a very luxurious and economically prosperous lifestyle.

What I am proposing that the people need to do, is to embrace a greater a cause. Will this happen? Probably not. I feel that if the people had any idea of how their freedom has been hijacked then they could seek to do something about it. Until that information is distributed to the masses, no “change” can occur. The system places its own goals and motives above what is the best for the people.

Agreed, that it will take something to change the system but no one man alone can possibly achieve this change. It seems that every president is worse than the previous one. As each year day passes, the system gets richer while the masses get poorer.

Accountability, transparency and regulation and decreasing the financial gap between the rich and poor are vital endeavors in fixing the problems home and abroad. But the question I pose time and time again is who is going to provide these means? Who is going to fix these problems? The system who has and continues to benefit?

The nation is caught up in the notion that a democratic president and a democratic congress, might actually be able to fix the mess the country is in. But will they? The history of the political parties shows us that no administration has been able to provide the means to combat the struggles the masses face.

You say that “we funded the Taliban because it was convenient to do so at the time.” But now because the services of the Taliban are not needed, we bombed and bombed Afghanistan, killing thousands of civilians and US troops. The choices we make today shape our world tomorrow. How can we justify funding terrorism?

My thoughts on the communist fiasco and the cold war were that it was a viable means by the system to control the masses. Today, the communist threat has been replaced by a terror threat. The politics of fear are used brilliantly by the system to control the masses. Our government claims to spread democracy in Iraq. Is this much different than the Soviets spreading Communism?

The United States has a tainted history in foreign affairs. It seeks to impose its capitalistic and imperialistic will on lesser people. Were all the dead troops in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., worth it? What have we gained as a country? Not only have we impoverished entire countries but we continue to do so at the expense of our own people.

Over 30 million people in the United States live in poverty. Is the United States truly a world power, when a documented ten percent of its population lives like a peasant? In comparison to other countries, in terms of foreign policy, maybe the United States is a world power. But that is only due to the intervention that the United States continues to foolishly pursue.

Foreign policy in the United States is narrow-minded. The policy makers who make these decisions are concerned with the policies that will make their pockets deeper and increase their monetary value. Think Iraq was to free the Iraqi people, while Cheney’s stock options increased 3000% due to Halliburton being allocated no competition bids?

I ask you to consider and attempt to answer the following. What does national security entail? Does it mean that we have to pillage, rape and exploit people in foreign lands? Does it mean that countless American troops have to die in places thousands of miles away? Does it mean that Korea, Vietnam and Iraq are justifiable?

Every action naturally has a reaction. In the United States, the interpretation of history is one sided. The system and media portray only one side of the story and they speak of this story so much that they manipulate the opinion of the people.

Just look at the number of people dead due to needless US intervention. Look at the extreme poverty that is faced within United States borders. Look at the rising medical costs, college costs when coupled with the realistically that millions of people are losing their jobs. Look at the scandals of our politicians, from the IL Governor who claims that he is a victim of a scam to raise taxes to Barney Frank’s prostitution ring that of course he had no clue about.

Democracy does not need to be changed or altered but the system needs to be abolished so the people can regain the freedoms allotted to them in the Bill of Rights. Democracy allows the maximum participation of the citizenry. Democracy is contingent on a free and constitutionally protected citizenry. We need to go back to what the house, senate and president democratically need to be: for the people and by the people.

Maybe Obama will make a difference but I inclined to be much more cynical. After all it was a democratic president, although backed by a republican majority, that got rid of many of the FDR induced economic regulations.

Sat Jan 24, 02:27:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

Well that's a strong indictment of America for sure. While 10% of Americans live in poverty, the type of poverty they live in is nowhere near comparable to the poverty found in the Global South nations. And America is not the only country experiencing an economic downturn. If you're arguing that our economic problems are one indicator that we need to abolish our system of government, than most of the industrial world apparently needs a new system as well. We do need to address these problems, though.

I would still say that mistakes were made in foreign policy, but some of the interventions have done some good. We removed a sadistic dictator in Iraq who claimed to have WMD and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. We fought the influence of communism in countries that have much bloodier histories than our own and some of which had governments that were extremely repressive. I think in a world so dangerous, we have to keep hunting terrorists who would oppose our democratic ideals. Sure we have exploited many people, but so have any number of other prosperous countries in the world including Japan, France, England, China, Russia, Spain, Israel, Egypt, and many more. I'm not saying that since others exploit people we can too, but rather that you have to blame these countries as well for contributing to exploitation in general.

If the U.S. had not exploited some countries, you can't be sure that another country would not have exploited them instead and taken our place as a global superpower. So you cannot indict the actions of America without indicting the actions of most of the civilized world.

We have also helped many people. America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to charity. It is not as if the countries you describe, Bosnia, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, were peaceful nations whose people lived in freedom and prosperity. Our nation's short history is no where near as bloody or repressive as some of these nations. I think if you took a poll of the American people, the overwhelming majority of them would not agree with you that we should abolish our democratic system. I think things could be a lot worse. We still have a system in which power is turned over peacefully when a new president is elected by the people. That's a lot more than many other countries can say.

Sat Jan 24, 03:10:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

All good points. The United States indeed is the most generous country in the world in terms. The United States is also by far the leading producer of all arms in the world, producing well over 50% of the world total. The United States also took out diplomats out of Rwanda while genocide was occurring.

The US has been a country that allocated massive amounts of aid and it has the potential to be even a greater demonstrator of peace.

“If the U.S had not exploited some countries, you can’t be sure that another country would not have exploited them instead and taken our place as a global superpower.”

If I had bet on the Cardinals making the Super Bowl, I would have a few more dollars in my pocket. If I had invested in Microsoft in the 1990’s, I would be a very wealthy man.

Indeed we can’t be sure that another country would not have exploited but the fact of the matter is that no other county did. The United States however did. To use the word if, justifies inhumane and illegal acts in foreign policy.

Most of the world does need a new economic system. Capitalism allows capita to centered among the plutocracy. What would an alternative economic system look like? I’m not quite sure at this point; I need to research the matter much further. But a good place to start is lowering the gap between rich and poor. No capitalistic system has done so.

The countries I described were not peaceful nations whose people lived in freedom and prosperity. But in many cases, it can argued that once these countries were beginning to establish their own freedom and prosperity on their terms, such as in Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile, etc., the United States intervened and took away this freedom.

Can you truly believe that the Vietnamese people are better off because of the United States? It is folly to suggest that Vietnam would have been better off with United States administered bombings, political upheavals and agent orange.

The Americans that live poverty unequivocally do not live in the same conditions as those in Global South nations. Ever wonder many South American countries are unstable and disheveled? U.S intervention policies greatly provided for these present conditions.

Where you and I differ most, is in the notion that the United States can be seen as justified in their actions because they are now a superpower. Under no circumstance do I consider the United States a superpower. A superpower wouldn’t have gotten owned in Korea and Vietnam. A superpower would not have 10 percent of its population in poverty. A superpower would not have to bailout companies and subsequently print more money into another tax stimulus plan.

To me a superpower is one that advocates peace and takes the value of a human life as sacred. Despite the different conditions all peoples of the world are exposed to and live in, life is common to all of us. When the United States kills our troops and those abroad in the desire of expanding upon the interests of the system they are no better than common murderers.

Our nation’s short history is by far one of the most bloody and repressive in all of history. In less than 250 years, the United States has killed thousands of people just within its own borders. In the 17th and 18th century it was the Native Americans. A politician initiated the Trail of Tears; politicians broke treaties with the native peoples and proceeded to slaughter them when the natives allowed civilization on this continent to continue, hence Thanksgiving.

After the Indians came blacks and the slave trade. To abolish this slave trade and the economic system discrepancies between North and South, ½ million Americans died. Look at the numbers of dead in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cuba, Honduras, etc., but look at the numbers not just in terms of dead Americans but in terms of peoples intervention killed and maimed as well.

We not need to abolish democracy. Democracy works but the currents agents of the system do not allow it work as it should. Of course things could be a lot worse but they could and should be a lot better as well. Like the notion of communism, democracy as ideal works but the system controlling both entities does not allow it to work

Sat Jan 24, 03:54:00 PM EST

Anonymous said...

I can solve this debate. Move to Canada ;)

Sat Jan 24, 05:24:00 PM EST