New poll finds many feel US is military threat

From The Pew Research Center

And the top nations aren't even on the "Axis of Evil."

Indonesia - 74%

Nigeria - 72%

Russia - 71%

Turkey - 71%

The rest of the world could hate us like the French if we strive to create Liberal Democracies throughout the world.

OH NO! HERE GOES MY LOVE FOR LOCKE AND PAINE!

Oh, so the people of these nations enjoy being repressed then?

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Oh, so the people of these nations enjoy being repressed then?

Most are uneducated, ignorant, and do not have the ablility to learn. I think it is horrible when we support those governments.

The governments Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Indonesia are all supported by the US government and their corporate friends.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
The governments Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Indonesia are all supported by the US government and their corporate friends.

They are also supported by every other world power. It is wrong. We need to push Liberal Democratic reforms in each of those nations.

And if they pick radical Islam or another form of government that is hostile to US ""interests""? Do you propose the US government pull another 9-11-75 to ""fix"" that problem?

"Rat Boy" wrote:
And if they pick radical Islam or another form of government that is hostile to US ""interests""? Do you propose the US government pull another 9-11-75 to ""fix"" that problem?

I don''t think you understand what a Liberal Democracy is. It isn''t just one ""vote"" and that is it. We push Democratic institutions: Bill of Rights, Court system, Rule of Law, constitution, seperate power, etc.

So, we cram our values on a people rather than let them pick their own? Sounds suspiciously like 9-11-75 or any other time the US actively attemtped to prevent a populace from picking the ""wrong"" government.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
So, we cram our values on a people rather than let them pick their own? Sounds suspiciously like 9-11-75 or any other time the US actively attemtped to prevent a populace from picking the ""wrong"" government.

Yes. Our values are better than theirs. Liberal Democracy is better for them and the rest of the world. They are free to worship as they want and able to persue happiness.

It is nothing like 9-11-75. That is when we get rid of one tyrant for another.

"Ulairi" wrote:
Our values are better than theirs.

Dude, you are on fire tonight. And I know I''ve heard this somewhere before...errr...let me think...there was this monarch dude...and a skinny guy wearing white cloth...oh this is going to bother me all night.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:
Our values are better than theirs.

Dude, you are on fire tonight. And I know I''ve heard this somewhere before...errr...let me think...there was this monarch dude...and a skinny guy wearing white cloth...oh this is going to bother me all night.

No. I''m not PC and do not believe in moral equivalency.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:
Our values are better than theirs.

Dude, you are on fire tonight. And I know I''ve heard this somewhere before...errr...let me think...there was this monarch dude...and a skinny guy wearing white cloth...oh this is going to bother me all night.

Our values being that the individual has the right to pursue his or her life to its fullest potential (or even the rights to not, btw), economic freedoms, and the rights of self-expression/beliefs.

Yeah, our values are much better then theirs.

Are we telling others how to live? Not really, we want them to tell themselves how to live, and give them the tools to do it well.

Give a man a fish vs teaching him how to fish and so on.

Part of what makes our values worthwhile is the difficult road we had to travel to make those values a part of our culture. Without that cultural growth, I doubt they will stick for a civilization so dramatically different than our own.

Just installing democracy, like some kind of cultural machine, is destined to fail. I hope I''m wrong, but there''s no evidence that I would be.

"Elysium" wrote:
Part of what makes our values worthwhile is the difficult road we had to travel to make those values a part of our culture. Without that cultural growth, I doubt they will stick for a civilization so dramatically different than our own.

Just installing democracy, like some kind of cultural machine, is destined to fail. I hope I''m wrong, but there''s no evidence that I would be.

Ohhhh, philosophy! Good.

Look at the Stockholm (sp) syndrom. Prisoners come to be attached to their guards. Does that make it right? If they are innocent don''t they deserve to be free?

Plato''s allagory of the cave: Men born into chains and forced to watch shadows on the wall, belive those shadows to be reality. One day one of them breaks free only to learn there is a sun and the images he''s been staring at his whole life are only shadows. Plato argues that if that man tries to convience the others about their ''percieved'' reality, they would rather kill him, then be forced to believe their whole life was a lie. (much like you are suggesting, to paraphase).

The argument being is it better to allow citizens a worse life, if thats what they''ve come to expect, or do you challange them to lead better, enriching lives that will ultimately lead to the freedoms deserving of human beings? Even if at first they don''t want (or more importantly, don''t know) any better?


Just installing democracy, like some kind of cultural machine, is destined to fail. I hope I''m wrong, but there''s no evidence that I would be.

Worked for the Western world.

Because they installed it themselves, not having it crammed down their throats by an occupation force.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Because they installed it themselves, not having it crammed down their throats by an occupation force.

Germany, Japapn (They are apart of the Western world in a ""sense"").

Now that they have the freedom to choose, Germany has made it clear that they do not choose the US. Japan will side with the US so long as North Korea is beligerent. Hopefully, they''ll take a lead in dealing with Kim Jong Il since it seems the Administration is giving the DPRK a free pass on nuclear weapons.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Now that they have the freedom to choose, Germany has made it clear that they do not choose the US. Japan will side with the US so long as North Korea is beligerent. Hopefully, they''ll take a lead in dealing with Kim Jong Il since it seems the Administration is giving the DPRK a free pass on nuclear weapons.

a free pass? How?

Where''s the demand to let in weapons inspectors? Where''s the redeployment of military forces? Where''s the tough talk? So far, all we have is lip service, more attention paid to Iran''s WMDs, and talks of a troop scale down in South Korea.

Face it. While the Administration knocked over one petty dictator with little to no WMDs, they let another dictator admittedly stockpile nuclear weapons. Perhaps it is time for the government to explain why Saddam Hussein was a bigger danger to the US than Kim Jong Il, a man who now sits in striking distance of US soil with the worst weapon ever designed by man.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Where''s the demand to let in weapons inspectors? Where''s the redeployment of military forces? Where''s the tough talk? So far, all we have is lip service, more attention paid to Iran''s WMDs, and talks of a troop scale down in South Korea.

Face it. While the Administration knocked over one petty dictator with little to no WMDs, they let another dictator admittedly stockpile nuclear weapons. Perhaps it is time for the government to explain why Saddam Hussein was a bigger danger to the US than Kim Jong Il, a man who now sits in striking distance of US soil with the worst weapon ever designed by man.

Go back and re-read the news.

Funny, I did do that and I found a few facts. You know, you have to wonder why Saddam was deemed a bigger threat to the US. Did he have ICBMs capable of hitting the US? No, North Korea''s Taepodong II missle can hit Alaska and perhaps hit the West Coast while sacrificing some accuracy. Was Iraq the biggest state sponsor of terror in the world? No, you will no doubt agree that Syria and Iran have that distinction. Did Saddam have nuclear weapons? No and North Korea has admitted to having them and stated their willingness to use them against the US. One must call into question the so-called ""pure"" motives of pressing for a war against Iraq in light of the following points:

* Several key Neo-Conservatives who now serve in the Bush Administration attempted to persuade then-President Clinton to invade Iraq to overthrow Saddam at a time where weapons inspectors were in-country and finding WMDs. Source: The Project for the New American Century

* On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld (a signator of the above letter) suggested that the US attack Iraq as its response to 9-11 before even considering attacking al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld continued to press for this in the planning stages for the War on Terror despite the general belief that there was no link between Saddam and 9-11. Source: Bush at War by Bob Woodward

* In the months after the fall of the Taliban in 2002, Paul Wolfowitz, another signator of the above letter, successfully pushed the Administration into war with Iraq. Wolfowitz was one of the few junior members of the Bush Sr. Administration to disagree with ending the first Gulf War without pressing towards Baghad, and in the years between wars, made it his business to rally people to eliminate Saddam. Sources: ""Paul Wolfowitz: Bush''s Brainiest Hawk"" by Romesh Ratnesar (Time) and Bush at War by Bob Woodward

* Several claims made by the governments of the US and the UK about the WMD capabilities and activities of the Saddam regime have proven false. President Bush''s assertion that Iraq had purchased Uranium from Niger was proved to be based on a false British report. Tony Blair''s assertion that the Iraqi military could use WMDs with 45 minutes notice was proven false by the fact that no WMDs were found with Iraq soldiers in the field. Source: ""Weapons of Mass Dissappearance"" by Michael Duffy (Time) and ""Angry Blair Says UK Did Not Invent WMD Evidence"" by Mike Peacock (Reuters)

* Before and during Colin Powell''s attempts at coalition-building, he frequently found his position undercut by statements made by other Administration officials. A speech by Dick Cheney on August 26, 2002, tersely stated that the UN was a waste of time and that the potential for a nuclear-armed Iraq justified a preemptive assualt to oust the regime. The next day, Donald Rumsfeld implied that the US would go it alone. Finally, there was the now-infamous ""Old Europe"" remark by Rumsfeld. Ultimately, two of Europe''s largest powers actively opposed any attack on Iraq and the streets of the world''s largest cities were filled with citizens opposed to a Bush-led war on Iraq. Despite this apparent failure to sell the war to the UN Security Council and the global populace, the war was launched anyways. Source: Source: Bush at War by Bob Woodward and various

* Unsatisfied with the intel provided by the CIA, Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to ""double-check"" the facts gathered by the CIA and to, in the words of one official, obtain ""the intelligence he wanted."" Source: ""Weapons of Mass Dissappearance"" by Michael Duffy(Time)

* Apparently, the intelligence is raising so many eyebrows that Republicans in the US Senate are launching an investigation. Source: ""Senate to Probe Iraq Weapons Intelligence"" from The Associated Press by Jesse J. Holland

* Even members of the Bush Administration admitted that much of what they had didn''t stand up to close scrutiny, so they allegedly gave Colin Powell a list of things to address when he went before the UN Security Council in February. Source: ""Truth and consequences - New questions about U.S. intelligence regarding Iraq''s weapons of mass terror"" by Bruce B. Auster, Mark Mazzetti and Edward T. Pound (U.S. News)

This is just for starters, and doesn''t begin to address the rebuilding contracts, the looting, the rapid change of US civilian administrators, the oil, and the so-far non-existant WMDs. So, Ulairi (and Yomm, if he''s interested), I challenge you to answer the following:

* Why was Saddam Hussein''s regime a bigger threat to the US than North Korea (and if you believe Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, al-Qaeda)?

* Why did the US use shaky and false intel in selling the war to the world?

* Why were Colin Powell''s efforts to build a broad coalition against Iraq undercut in part by the actions of Cheney and Rumsfeld?

* Why, after the fall of Iraq and the continued threats from North Korea, does the Administration make threats to Iran instead of North Korea?

* Why would Republicans find the need to investigate the intel from the pre-war period?

Worked for the Western world.

No. No it didn''t. It may have worked for the US, but it''s been crap for the rest of us in America.

I agree with Elysium, and it''s something I''ve been thinking about for the past month. It''s useless that the US tries to ""Fix"" other countries. They have to fix themselves. Economic aid may be nice, but I think everyone needs a revolution.

[quote=""Mex""]

Worked for the Western world.

No. No it didn''t. It may have worked for the US, but it''s been crap for the rest of us in America. [quote]

Canada is doing fine. Mexico''s problem isn''t Liberal Democracy. There is no reason why Mexico should not be a rich nation. They have plenty of national resources, vacation spots, and the right tools to get a rich nation.

The argument being is it better to allow citizens a worse life, if thats what they''ve come to expect, or do you challange them to lead better, enriching lives that will ultimately lead to the freedoms deserving of human beings?

We aren''t challenging them. We''re just trying to do it for them (and a pretty piss poor job of it we''re doing). To challenge would be a diplomatic procedure, and as I''ve said before that''s a fine direction to take. The Plato story was nice. Not really applicable, but nice. It''s really noble to want everything to go from Hussein Iraq to democracy in even one generation (much less a matter of years), but it''s historically ludicrous.

I stand behind what I said above. The pride we feel in our culture stems from the centuries of work we put into it. That will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, even remotely begin to happen in an American created Iraqi government. You will get a lot of terrorists and a civilian population that feels oppressed, so if that''s the goal, then we''re on target.

[quote=""Ulairi""][quote=""Mex""]

Worked for the Western world.

No. No it didn''t. It may have worked for the US, but it''s been crap for the rest of us in America.

Canada is doing fine. Mexico''s problem isn''t Liberal Democracy. There is no reason why Mexico should not be a rich nation. They have plenty of national resources, vacation spots, and the right tools to get a rich nation.

I sure as hell hope you are not stating that Canada had democracy installed by someone other than Canadians. We fought for our democracy several times and cut our ties with Britian because as a nation that is what we wanted.

That is why democracy works in Canada.

So I will repeat what Mex and Elysium have already mentioned. You cannot force a way of living on anyone, they must choose it themselves. If the past has not taught you this lesson yet than I suggest you go and reread your history books!


I sure as hell hope you are not stating that Canada had democracy installed by someone other than Canadians. We fought for our democracy several times and cut our ties with Britian because as a nation that is what we wanted.

I was saying Liberal Democracy has worked well for Canada.

Has it worked well for France too?

"Rat Boy" wrote:
From The Pew Research Center

And the top nations aren''t even on the ""Axis of Evil.""

Indonesia - 74%

Nigeria - 72%

Russia - 71%

Turkey - 71%

Ahh... they''re all a bunch of godless commies anyway.
Probably dirty, too.

Actually responding here, I''m gonna say it''s a lot more telling that more often than not that the citizens of these same countries usually feel quite postive about the citizens of the US. It''s nice that they acknowledge that we as a people are not entirely to blame.


Ahh... they''re all a bunch of godless commies anyway.
Probably dirty, too.

Read the whole study. 70% of Russians like us. So 71% think we''re a military threat while 70% like us.