HBR_Rocket Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 So, what were we doing when we were installing radical dictators into formerly free nations during the cold war? Protecting freedom by limiting freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HBR_Rocket Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 sorry for the bad grammer in my last post , I'm pushed up against time for a meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 But you seem to kind of skip around the question, with all due respect. It seems like the US acted solely in its best interest, rather than attempting to further some abstract concept of freedom. That may be what the politicos said was the reasoning, but in the end it was a borderline paranoid desire to maintain a measure of control over every part of the earth rather than a beneficial action on our part. If we truly believed in the concept of freedom and spreading it to every corner of the earth, we wouldn't have actively installed dictators into nations. What about the coup in Iran that rapidly destabilized the entire region? What about instating a dictator over democratically-elected leaders in Syria, Guatemala, Guyana (this one was great, we removed a leader who we just said had communist ties, instead of someone who even really proposed communist programs), and countless other locations? Allende in Chile was the best situation. We have a democratically elected official who is doing the best he can for his nation, and the US comes in and literally starves the big cities, preventing any food from breaking through. Allende was doing nothing dangerous in the least, but the US couldn't allow a socialist anywhere in the world, and so he was disposed of. And who replaced him? Augusto Pinochet, one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. Wonderful, isn't it? We have no desire to spread freedom, we just have the desire to use the rhetoric to enhance our own position and to make undefensible moves look not quite as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkB Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 No to plunder off-topic here, but am I the only one who sees a problem with taking photos of dead people's bodies and plastering them all over news websites and newspapers? It was bad enough that there was apparently a video associated with the image on page 1, but when I was reading the newspaper this morning, I turned the page to find a massive photo of this guy's face dumped onto the background of the story. Damn near made me hurl as I was eating breakfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAM Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 We have no desire to spread freedom, we just have the desire to use the rhetoric to enhance our own position and to make undefensible moves look not quite as bad. i think you're right. japan is a perfect example of how we "implemented" freedom and democracy. in no way am i anti-american, quite the contrary but, i have the ability (i think), to see things for what they really are - most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 No to plunder off-topic here, but am I the only one who sees a problem with taking photos of dead people's bodies and plastering them all over news websites and newspapers? It was bad enough that there was apparently a video associated with the image on page 1, but when I was reading the newspaper this morning, I turned the page to find a massive photo of this guy's face dumped onto the background of the story. Damn near made me hurl as I was eating breakfast. It's actually a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, but, well, we don't really have a problem with that anymore. i think you're right. japan is a perfect example of how we "implemented" freedom and democracy. The reconstruction in the period following WW2 was nothing like the CIA-sponsored coups during the cold war. One was attempting to avoid the mistakes we made following WW1 (leaving Germany to fend for itself, leading to a crushed infrastructure, leading to the rise of national socialism), and the other was forcing Western control over areas where we should not have been involved in the first place. And even if we were attempting to spread freedom and democracy by removing democratically elected officials, why did we instate bloodthirsty autocrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkB Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 It's actually a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, but, well, we don't really have a problem with that anymore. Yeah, I thought that, but dismissed it when it appeared on today's newspaper. I wonder if the media outlets would be so keen to print the picture if it was of George W. Bush or Tony Blair's bloody remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Yeah, I thought that, but dismissed it when it appeared on today's newspaper. I wonder if the media outlets would be so keen to print the picture if it was of George W. Bush or Tony Blair's bloody remains. Showing his dead body was necessary. The Arab media would not have believed it, probably would say it was US propaganda. Even some Arabs are saying its some sort of hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.