arf9999
MyBroadband Member
I'm still waiting for that single example of democracy that the US initiated and supported.....
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Sometimes things are not what they seem
- Thread starter Darth Garth
- Start date
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
what? One of the reasons that economic sanctions took so long to be applied was because the US and Britain opposed them. The CIA supported South Africa and UNITA in their incursions into Angola... not what I'd call pressure on the SA government.Trafeye said:
arf9999 said:
There are none so blind that wish not to see. No matter what is offered you will reject it. No use me or anyone else trying. Example: If I were to say the US is working hard (costing them lives) at establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan you will come with arguments about the US and the Bush family doing it for selfish reasons etc etc etc.
Why don't you show us those countries that have done better and more than the US at establishing and protecting democracies across the globe - and please remember to mention the number of lives lost to do so for others.
You will not see the truth because you've made the decision before-hand not to. And nothing will then change your mind.
arf9999 said:
I've said so earlier ... the beauty of America is that in that country people can force changes to their Government's policies and actions in a free and democratic way.
Bottom line is this ... the fact that you can do what you're doing on this forum today - here in SA - is because of freedom and technology made possible by America more than any other nation.
If you cannot accept America with its positive good vs bad record then you surely cannot accept any other nation either. Who doesn't make mistakes? Who never acts selfishly? Who's done better?
When the chips are down everyone runs to America for help and protection.
and arf9999, if America were to stop feeding and healing many in Africa tonight there will be no-one to fill the gap - and millions will die of hunger and disease. By far the majority of funding for charity work worldwide comes from the US. When the tsunamis hit the Far East 80% of all money were donated by Americans. What if they were not there to do so?
Why? No other country but the US is claiming to be a great installer and protector of democracies (nor has anyone on this forum claimed that any other country was). People (including on this forum) have however claimed that the US is, so let's talk about what it is that the US has done, i.e. back up those claims. You're trying to change the subject by asking people to back up some fictitious claim that was never made.Trafeye said:
I'm also still curious about which democracies the US played a significant and positive role in establishing or protecting, as none of the answers so far have been terribly satisfactory (and the list of failures where the US caused demonstrably more harm than good appears to be much longer) .. I mean what do we have now, Taiwan (sort of), Japan (sort of) and South Korea (sort of)?
(As for food aid, do you know how it actually works? Aid money is used to undercut African farmers and purchase American grain to be shipped to African countries. This is a major protectionism issue. I personally think Africa would be better off in the long run if, yes, America stopped with the aid completely, so that Africans could finally stand up and say "hey look nobody's going to take care of us, we'd better take care of ourselves". Currently there are perpetually massive overpromises of aid creating false hope, and perpetually underdelivery on those promises.)
Edit: Here's an interesting link on the 'food aid problem' for anyone interested: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
Last edited:
Spoken like a man who knows where is next meal is coming from.Turtle said:
Instead of sentencing countless millions to death how about you first eliminate the need for aid. Drought and famine shouldn't be a problem either, right?
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
I didn't have to say anything. You said it yourself. Don't tell me that you think that the US is in Iraq out of the kindness of their hearts. Read this.Trafeye said:
Why do I have to? I asked you to substantiate a rather stupid comment that you made - which you don't seem to be able to (at least neio tried
). The fact is that the USA has done very little to foster or protect democracy across the globe. And why should they? Why should any single country get involved in the internal issues of any other country? There is a forum for that, it's called the United Nations. Of course, the US only takes heed of the UN when it suits them, and often misuses their veto power in the Security Council - but that's a whole other argument.That is simply not true. I'm not anti-USA. I think that the USA is an incredible country. I don't agree with your points however and I think that I can logically debate you on it. You, however, don't seem capable of entering the debate by substantiating your position.
Again: I'm not anti-USA, however that doesn't mean that I have to agree with their foreign policy, which I feel has been hi-jacked by some interest groups. That's my position and I think I can argue it successfully.
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
Turtle's points do seem counter-intuitive, however he does have a point. Of course food aid should not be stopped outright, however there are a number of commentators who think that the aid supplied to Africa is not helping with the fundamental issues. The failure of the latest round of WTO talks means more problems for Africa unfortunately.bwana v.14 said:Spoken like a man who knows where is next meal is coming from.
Instead of sentencing countless millions to death how about you first eliminate the need for aid. Drought and famine shouldn't be a problem either, right?
Unfortunately it seems that Aid is used as a political tool rather than as humanitarian assistance by some governments.
FYI: It is not generally known but famines are usually caused by politics and wars, not drought.
arf9999 said:
arf9999, your arrogance has blinded you. I have given you a good example ... South Africa ... but you keep on saying I have not given you a "convincing" example. The problem with you is that nothing anyone says that goes against your pre-set mindset will be convincing enough. This debate will thus move in endless circles. If you cannot appreciate the role the US has played in bringing SA to a democracy then we are not going to get anywhere here.
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
Trafeye, I am the one debating here (you are the one who is not entering the argument). Your statement was the following:Trafeye said:
I say that this is a statement that needs substantiation. You claim that the USA has installed and protected democracies, but without substantiating it. You tapdance around by claiming South Africa as an example but your example is flawed: the US did not bring democracy to South Africa any more than, say, Sweden. In fact I could probably find more examples of Scandinavian action and pressure against the apartheid regime than from the USA. It may seem strange to you (someone who obviously equates the concept of western civilization with the USA) but South Africa's democratic (r)evolution occurred mostly internally and international pressure was merely a factor rather than a cause. If you want to really push the idea that the US was responsible for the implementation of democracy in SA, please explain how it was that the support for the liberation movements in SA came from the USA's enemies (at the time) such as East Germany (the DDR), the USSR and Cuba during the darkest days of apartheid (70s and 80s)? In fact, one of the reasons that it took so long to dismantle apartheid was largely due to US and British (Reagan & Thatcher govt.) covert support for the apartheid government.Trafeye said:
Trafeye, you are saying that I am blinded to the truth, but I'm not the one making stupid claims without substance. Quite honestly, you should just admit that you've joined an intellectual gunfight with a pocket knife. Go study some history and come back when you are grown up.
Here is some weekend reading for you: http://www.wikihow.com/Win-Informal-Arguments-and-Debates
I too struggle to see the "role" that the US played in bringing SA to a democracy.
The UN proposed sanctions in 1961, the USA was very late to pick up any interest in what was going on in SA because they had similar policies and segregation in their southern states. They were actively anti-sanctions all the way and only caved to public pressure to ban imports and investment in SA in the mid 80's, a good 25 years later and plenty of time after so many other countries.
Also, their was a CIA connection to the Apartheid government, it is even reported that the CIA was actually responsible for tipping off State Police to the whereabouts of Nelson Mandela to facilitate his arrest (not saying it is true but the CIA were here helping the government).
America does not protect democracy around the globe, they protect their interests and with a supreme court that does not represent the people, they are much less free than they appear.
The UN proposed sanctions in 1961, the USA was very late to pick up any interest in what was going on in SA because they had similar policies and segregation in their southern states. They were actively anti-sanctions all the way and only caved to public pressure to ban imports and investment in SA in the mid 80's, a good 25 years later and plenty of time after so many other countries.
Also, their was a CIA connection to the Apartheid government, it is even reported that the CIA was actually responsible for tipping off State Police to the whereabouts of Nelson Mandela to facilitate his arrest (not saying it is true but the CIA were here helping the government).
America does not protect democracy around the globe, they protect their interests and with a supreme court that does not represent the people, they are much less free than they appear.
Debbie
Banned
"It's far easier to fight for a principle than to actually live up to one".
Think about it.
Think about it.
The majority of US states had individual sanctions against SA - long before it was ever enacted in Congress. Not only states - companies too - who withdrew from the country long before congress signed off - this was only the final paperwork - of a policy that had been in place for years.Waron said:
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
Maybe so, but we are discussing the USA here, not the states in the federation. The individual people, states and companies do not set foreign policy in the USA. So your point is not really pertinent.kilo39 said:
My point is exactly pertinent - who elects the gub to set foreign policy? Companies and individuals are way ahead of any government. Congress merely signed off on a program that had been in place for years. When did IBM leave SA - 1979? - By this time individual american sanctions had been in place for years.arf9999 said:
Nope that side they do not want to hear abouts, they mixed with bran so now the pigs will eat them too! All they want from USA and Britain is the money, So they can defraud and steal some more, the rest of the time they are anti USA, Israel and Britain while mixing with scum like Iran, Cuba and Palestinians!Trafeye said:
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
er..ok then. Good debating there pupa... but obviously I'm the arrogant one...pupa said: