PDA

View Full Version : American ingerence into Russian internal affairs



Guest
03-12-2007, 10:26
So, the US administration is already (!) asking "investigations about frauds", concerning the Duma elections.

It is IMO natural that Russians may ask some investigations as they are directly concerned by eventual frauds, but Americans? I cannot remember that the Russian administration asked investigations during the "Bush saga" when he was named President by the Supreme Court after the last very disputed Presidential elections, for example.

So here is the poll :)

TGP
03-12-2007, 15:18
Guest,

I am so sorry, but it was me who voted "yes" :shame:

I pressed the wrong button by mistake!!! :verymad: :o

MickeyTong
03-12-2007, 15:22
Guest,

I am so sorry, but it was me who voted "yes" :shame:

I pressed the wrong button by mistake!!! :verymad: :o

I'd say it is a "normal" part of US foreign policy to interfere in other nations' internal affairs.....if it suits US interests.

Guest
03-12-2007, 18:55
LOL you live dangerously :))))))))


Guest,

I am so sorry, but it was me who voted "yes" :shame:

I pressed the wrong button by mistake!!! :verymad: :o

Benedikt
03-12-2007, 20:00
and they are bemoaning that 'other' parties had no chance because the faltered o nthe '7 %' clause, while for instance in a country like germany 5 5 is the norm.
Well they failed the 7 and 5 and even 2 % hurdle, the last 5 parties, including Yablinsky and Kasparov,all of them got LESS than 2%.. so they should polish their image,work FOR and with the electorate and when they get their act together they can complain. And so can the rest of the world. Does not mean Russia has to listen...

Longhorn
03-12-2007, 22:05
There should be no rule against percentages for making the next ballot or for representation in Duma (as pointed out earlier in this thread). The percentages should be reasonable, at the very least. Is 7% to high? It's arguable and depends on the type of democracy Russia wishes to establish (in a two-party system, 7% should not be viewed unreasonable, while in a parlimentary system with multiple parties, 7% may be viewed as to high - the key lies with the citizens who are involved in such system).

Is it normal for the US to question the legality of a vote in a foreign country? This is something the US has done in its history whenever there are strong allegations/evidence of voting misconduct, or where US or other voting monitors have observed such misconduct.

Is it right? That depends strictly on how one interprets right and wrong.

Clean32
03-12-2007, 23:18
I'd say it is a "normal" part of US foreign policy to interfere in other nations' internal affairs.....if it suits US interests.

Hell yes, every thing from funding foreign Parties torunning smear campaigns. To threateningassassination, and you are a fool if you think other wise.

Korotky Gennady
03-12-2007, 23:22
I have voted "yes'.

Korotky Gennady
03-12-2007, 23:24
But we have to enterfere in the us internal affairs too... Of course.

!

Sinestro
03-12-2007, 23:28
ingerence

is NOT an English word!

What language is this word from?

Korotky Gennady
03-12-2007, 23:28
I cannot remember that the Russian administration asked investigations during the "Bush saga" when he was named President by the Supreme Court after the last very disputed Presidential elections, for example.




Bad... we could ask Bush about all this... It's us who were able to make Albert Gor our president !

:fireworks:

Korotky Gennady
03-12-2007, 23:32
Guest,

I am so sorry, but it was me who voted "yes" :shame:





No. Girl... it was the good choice ! :fireworks:

Korotky Gennady
03-12-2007, 23:36
Is it right? That depends strictly on how one interprets right and wrong.

Yeah... It is.

TGP
03-12-2007, 23:47
Bad... we could ask Bush about all this... It's us who were able to make Albert Gor our president !

:fireworks:

No, it's not bad. We just don't poke our nose into others' affairs.

Clean32
04-12-2007, 00:00
No, it's not bad. We just don't poke our nose into others' affairs.

UUMMM in the not so distant past Russia did, and did a lot, bascily the same as america did

TGP
04-12-2007, 00:04
UUMMM in the not so distant past Russia did, and did a lot, bascily the same as america did


Really? We ever said that people of other country(ies) were idiots who didn't see the truth, didn't want democracy in our way, and that the results of the elections were fraud?

Clean32
04-12-2007, 00:10
Really? We ever said that people of other country(ies) were idiots who didn't see the truth, didn't want democracy in our way, and that the results of the elections were fraud?

Almost correct, but it was more like people of other counties are idiots and cant see the truth, come under our wing Oh comrade, and bathe in the light of the red star rising, together the workers paradise is but a revolution away.

TGP
04-12-2007, 00:55
Almost correct, but it was more like people of other counties are idiots and cant see the truth, come under our wing Oh comrade, and bathe in the light of the red star rising, together the workers paradise is but a revolution away.

Clean, I really don't follow you. Or you mean the USSR time?

Guest
04-12-2007, 01:03
I have voted "yes'.

This isn't really a surprise for me :) But people are free, in Russia, you see :)

Fa-Q!
04-12-2007, 10:40
I declined to vote because I don't really understand what is meant by "normal". Does it mean that it's a regular thing for the US to meddle in the internal affairs of a foreign country? Or, does it mean that meddling in a country's internal affairs is ok?

At any rate, I think that the US and the rest of the West's "democracies" are simply taking advantage of the opportunity to bring attention to the obviously fixed elections so that they can point back to it when it will be of use to furthering their own interests.

Does the West really care about freedom in Russia or adherence to pure democratic principles? Of course not. They only care about having a regime in place that can be kept in check.

Elections are dirty the world over and always have been. Remember the scandal in Florida in 2000? Also, the Kennedy family's underhanded and corrupt victory amazed the defeated Richard Nixon. In fact, they taught him a thing or two. He learned from their coercion and bribery tactics and employed them in his campaign the next time around, which secured his seat in the White House.

These are just a couple of examples. I'm sure our friends from other countries can point to many more.

Clean32
04-12-2007, 13:33
I declined to vote because I don't really understand what is meant by "normal". Does it mean that it's a regular thing for the US to meddle in the internal affairs of a foreign country? Or, does it mean that meddling in a country's internal affairs is ok?.

I read it as being that it is normal and for americans thay think it is correct to meddle


At any rate, I think that the US and the rest of the West's "democracies" are simply taking advantage of the opportunity to bring attention to the obviously fixed elections so that they can point back to it when it will be of use to furthering their own interests.?.

i could be wrong, but i scaned many papers, and no there country was making the same statments as the US, i think it is time that russians reconised that the US and europe are not one in the same, and thay do not share the same views of russia


Does the West really care about freedom in Russia or adherence to pure democratic principles? Of course not. They only care about having a regime in place that can be kept in check.

Elections are dirty the world over and always have been. Remember the scandal in Florida in 2000? Also, the Kennedy family's underhanded and corrupt victory amazed the defeated Richard Nixon. In fact, they taught him a thing or two. He learned from their coercion and bribery tactics and employed them in his campaign the next time around, which secured his seat in the White House.

These are just a couple of examples. I'm sure our friends from other countries can point to many more.

Agree with the rest of your post

Fa-Q!
04-12-2007, 14:55
I'm one American that doesn't see it proper to meddle in another country's affairs. However, if Russia wants to be taken seriously and participate in all the good things that being part of the democratic world allows them to, they cannot just snub their nose at the rest of the world when they're accused of fixing elections. Or can they? I guess that they will.

I have a newspaper quoting the top brass from all over Europe being very critical over the Russian elections.

I disagree with you. I think that the US and Europe have very similar points of view on Russia. The difference is not in their assessments of Russia, but in how the EU and US conduct themselves in foreign relations.

Clean32
04-12-2007, 15:20
I'm one American that doesn't see it proper to meddle in another country's affairs. However, if Russia wants to be taken seriously and participate in all the good things that being part of the democratic world allows them to, they cannot just snub their nose at the rest of the world when they're accused of fixing elections. Or can they? I guess that they will.

I have a newspaper quoting the top brass from all over Europe being very critical over the Russian elections.

I disagree with you. I think that the US and Europe have very similar points of view on Russia. The difference is not in their assessments of Russia, but in how the EU and US conduct themselves in foreign relations.

Good post, I tend to think that if the observers were allowed in and with sufficient numbers, this could lead to diminishing the flack from other countries and any points could be addressed in the presidential elections, thus making the next president look even better,

I do disagree with your statement that European countries are all aligned with America, American external politics is still quite brutal and amateurish compared to the euros, America needs to be managed in there view. I know this is contrary to common perception buy you just need to dig a little deeper. the real falling out was back with the Lockheed star fighter deal, read up about that, and you can see how Europe fractured then came together again with an eye on Russia and suspect views of America. Personally I think Europe is much closer to Russia than many people suspect, and its getting closer, something America will do any thing to stop.

But to sum up, I think that the Russian attitude of we are Russians we can do what we want, is correct BUT and its a big but, they don’t do anything to manage there self perception then criticize when criticized, possibly there own worse enemy in a way.

drbobguy
08-12-2007, 11:34
Clean, I really don't follow you. Or you mean the USSR time?

Hungary 1956 or Prague 1968.

You can argue that Russia is a separate nation now and so can't be held accountable for those events, but you could also argue the opposite. A political administration does not make a nation.

TGP
11-12-2007, 15:12
Hungary 1956 or Prague 1968.

You can argue that Russia is a separate nation now and so can't be held accountable for those events, but you could also argue the opposite. A political administration does not make a nation.


Yeah, and that' s why it is normal for the US to meddle in Russia's afairs now. If so, it is normal for Russia to meddle in the US elections because of the war in Vietnam.

In general, why not to start with, say, 1917 and see who was responsible for what, who paid whom, and why the revolution happened? And then let all of us base our policy and relations on the facts of the world history.

TGP
11-12-2007, 15:15
Does the West really care about freedom in Russia or adherence to pure democratic principles? Of course not. They only care about having a regime in place that can be kept in check.
.

Exactly. But then why should Russia care about what the West says about her? Let alone do what the West wants her to do?

Fa-Q!
11-12-2007, 15:43
Because Russia needs support from the West in order to become a trusted member of the international community- which is vital for Russia to flourish.

TGP
11-12-2007, 15:52
Because Russia needs support from the West in order to become a trusted member of the international community- which is vital for Russia to flourish.

Fa-Q, I think you contradict yourself. To support and to keep under control are quite different things.

Clean32
11-12-2007, 17:29
Yeah, and that' s why it is normal for the US to meddle in Russia's afairs now. If so, it is normal for Russia to meddle in the US elections because of the war in Vietnam. .

why do you say Now, thay have always tryed to meddle, and why do you think its only russia that the US is intrested in? The US meddles every where. and doint you know that the USSR did get involved in american politics nore so during the Vetname war LOL worce during Angola.


In general, why not to start with, say, 1917 and see who was responsible for what, who paid whom, and why the revolution happened? And then let all of us base our policy and relations on the facts of the world history.,
well Germany payed for the revolution, every one knows that. America payed for the reconstruction. Funny how many Americanski bridges were built in 1919-1921, all to be demolished in 1946-1948 and replaced with wooden boats and Barges

TGP
11-12-2007, 22:55
Clean, all what I want is to keep to the original subject, nothing else.And if I am not mistaken, it is about our days, not about our past.

Clean32
11-12-2007, 23:13
Clean, all what I want is to keep to the original subject, nothing else.And if I am not mistaken, it is about our days, not about our past.

can do, but general sweeping statements, and more so if the are a little missleading. or a responce to a post that has say been a little misread to the negative. doint help eather!!

Any way the point i am trying to make, is that to most of the rest of the non russian and nonamerican world. both russia and america are as bad as each other. add to that, russians always saying THE west as if everyone thinks or agrees with america. I can understand why americans think everyone agree with then But nothing could be further from the truth in reality.

The west The west, its like a broken record

Carbo
12-12-2007, 14:57
So, the US administration is already (!) asking "investigations about frauds", concerning the Duma elections.

It is IMO natural that Russians may ask some investigations as they are directly concerned by eventual frauds, but Americans? I cannot remember that the Russian administration asked investigations during the "Bush saga" when he was named President by the Supreme Court after the last very disputed Presidential elections, for example.

So here is the poll :)
This US government seems even more ready than normal to stock it's nose in where it's not welcome. We all know the occassions when US interference and diplomacy has appeared more to do with pet projects and American interests rather than a fair minded 'guardian of freedom' basis, so we don't need to list them here.

But doesn't the world's most powerful nation have a moral responsibility to act as watchdog for freedom and democracy?

Clean32
12-12-2007, 15:23
This US government seems even more ready than normal to stock it's nose in where it's not welcome. We all know the occassions when US interference and diplomacy has appeared more to do with pet projects and American interests rather than a fair minded 'guardian of freedom' basis, so we don't need to list them here.?

Agree 100%


But doesn't the world's most powerful nation have a moral responsibility to act as watchdog for freedom and democracy?

True but I would suspect that America is a borderline democracy more like an elected enlightened despotism. And as to freedom. It looks like America is only interested in is companies business interests global freedom. Add to that America is one of the big 4 arms dealers. No worlds watch dog ?? Don’t think so. Oh has America paid its UN fees yet ??

Judge
12-12-2007, 19:02
Yeah, and that' s why it is normal for the US to meddle in Russia's afairs now. If so, it is normal for Russia to meddle in the US elections because of the war in Vietnam.

In general, why not to start with, say, 1917 and see who was responsible for what, who paid whom, and why the revolution happened? And then let all of us base our policy and relations on the facts of the world history.

To know why they funded the revolution back in 1917 you need to go back a few more years.Banks don't give money out easily ,there's always a reason for it.The money that was given to kick start the revolution was to get back at the royal family because the russian royal family helped President Lincoln.

Clean32
12-12-2007, 19:26
For the russians, well for any one thats intrested.

Its a bit light but correct factualy, there were a few more forces in play but thay would not of had any real impact

President Abrahan Lincoln (http://www.reformation.org/president-lincoln.html)

Surfsup37
12-12-2007, 21:08
I guess it depends on your definition of "interference". If you believe as a leader of the Pro-Putin youth movement that the "US has paramilitary forces in Russia ready to take over media and government buildings to create a coup" then yes I agree that is interference.

If your complaint is that the US government requested that the Russian government investigate problems with the election, then no I don't.

Besides it wasn't just the US, it was most of Europe

Europe urges Russia to probe alleged election fraud - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/wl_nm/russia_vote_reaction_dc_2)

"It is vital that the Russian Central Election Commission urgently investigates all allegations of electoral abuses," Britain's foreign ministry said in a statement, echoing a similar call from Washington on Sunday.

It expressed disappointment that ODIHR (the OSCE's election arm) had not been able to observe the election. The ODIHR cancelled plans to monitor the poll after a row with Moscow over delays in issuing visas.

France took a similar line, with a foreign ministry spokeswoman expressing the hope that Moscow would "shed light" on the allegations of voting irregularities.

Sharper reaction came from German Chancellor Angela Merkel's government, seen as less close to Putin than that of her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder.

"There can be no doubt. Measured by our standards, it was neither a free, fair nor democratic election," spokesman Thomas Steg told a regular news conference.

Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also criticized in unusually strong terms the election and demanded Russia clear up irregularities surrounding the vote.

Russia entered into a number of forums/organizations with the pledge that they would honor democratic principles and traditional.

If Russia has decided that they do not want to follow those traditions then just resign from those organizations. Easy.

G-8 - Organizations of leading industrialized democracies
OSCE - Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Clean32
16-12-2007, 22:30
Russia entered into a number of forums/organizations with the pledge that they would honor democratic principles and traditional.

If Russia has decided that they do not want to follow those traditions then just resign from those organizations. Easy.

G-8 - Organizations of leading industrialized democracies
OSCE - Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

then i would say it is the place of these organisations to request of russia, and or disolve russias involment in these organisations. not US s place to yell from the top of the ivory tower, regardlese of if the US is correct or not. Infact with the poplur fealing in russia, anything that comes out of the US has a negative afect anyway. oh and not just on russia.

Wodin
17-12-2007, 01:38
Is anybody really arguing that the way Russia practices democarcy in any way resembles our ideal? The mere fact that the vast majority of voters support the President in itself shows that things work differently here. Which of our countries has 60%+ approval ratings for the top guy after god knows how many years?

I also noted that there were plenty of reports about the "supression" of certain ideas and political thoughts (including murder), and that the media generally are concentrated in favour of the existing ruling regime.

But hey, if they (ie Russians) are happy with them who am I to comment. We all get the government we deserve at the end of the day.

I myself, given what I do, very much favour the status quo (because it earns me more money...which is why I'm here and not enjoying the comforts of home), but to state that comments from Europe or the US on these issues constitues interference sounds a bit jingoistic and "Russia can do no wrong while everyone else can do no right and is out to get Russia" to me.

fenrir
17-12-2007, 10:00
Is anybody really arguing that the way Russia practices democarcy in any way resembles our ideal? The mere fact that the vast majority of voters support the President in itself shows that things work differently here. Which of our countries has 60%+ approval ratings for the top guy after god knows how many years?.

Speak to your Russian friends about the election. Several of mine HAD to bring absentee ballots to their workplaces and all vote together under the watchful eye of their respective managements. Tell me another country outside of Cuba or North Korea where that would be tolerated (and considered to be 'normal voting procedures').

fenrir
17-12-2007, 10:02
[COLOR=black]True but I would suspect that America is a borderline democracy more like an elected enlightened despotism.[/QUOTE]

Care to back this statement up with any facts?

Clean32
17-12-2007, 11:12
[color=black]True but I would suspect that America is a borderline democracy more like an elected enlightened despotism.

Care to back this statement up with any facts?[/quote]


easy just look at the structure, compared to say the westminster model. At no time in history has or can the westminster model give total control to the primeminister, but in the US, total control with out accountablity has been given to the pressident 16 times. i think if you add it up the US has been ruled!! for about 1/3 of its independat history, not counting the 13 years it took to write the consatution,

fenrir
17-12-2007, 11:37
Care to back this statement up with any facts?


easy just look at the structure, compared to say the westminster model. At no time in history has or can the westminster model give total control to the primeminister, but in the US, total control with out accountablity has been given to the pressident 16 times. i think if you add it up the US has been ruled!! for about 1/3 of its independat history, not counting the 13 years it took to write the consatution,[/QUOTE]

No president has ever had total control. That would have meant a suspension of both Congressional power and the legal system. It has never happened.

Clean32
17-12-2007, 11:50
easy just look at the structure, compared to say the westminster model. At no time in history has or can the westminster model give total control to the primeminister, but in the US, total control with out accountablity has been given to the pressident 16 times. i think if you add it up the US has been ruled!! for about 1/3 of its independat history, not counting the 13 years it took to write the consatution,

No president has ever had total control. That would have meant a suspension of both Congressional power and the legal system. It has never happened.[/quote]

But the president had been given power by Congress, that makes the president not accountable to eather congress or the legal system 16 times or as i said 1/3 of its independant history. a syspention of the leagal system would make no one accountable. and that by definition is not what i am talking about.

fenrir
17-12-2007, 12:38
Total control is TOTAL CONTROL. No US president has ever even remotely had the power that Hitler and Stalin enjoyed.

Clean32
17-12-2007, 19:23
Total control is TOTAL CONTROL. No US president has ever even remotely had the power that Hitler and Stalin enjoyed.


At no time did I mention or refer to Hitler or Stalin, neither am implying it!!! What I was doing was stating that the USA's Version of Democracy is more like elected enlightened despotism, than say a Westminster flavour of democracy, or even a French one.

Please do not distort my posts by implying i wrote something that i didnt !!

TGP
17-12-2007, 23:25
After 1.5 years on the forums, I can't hear this word - "democracy". It sets my teeth on edge. This vague concept is chewed, and chewed, and chewed... and no one can give a reasonable clear explanation what is the ideal form of democracy, where it really exists, and, what's most important, why all countries should have absolutely same form of democracy, and why some countries are judged much more strictly than others. I could continue, but what's the use?

I suspect that no one is really clued up on this subject, and this concept, democracy, is just an instrument used for quite different purposes.

Amen.

Clean32
18-12-2007, 03:08
Democracy, is an Ideal, something to try an achieve.

Look, on paper communism, is an ideal, but due to human nature it didn’t work quite that well, cant work that well. Democracy is also good on paper, but once again it to can be corrupted. Even Germany was a democracy with an electoral system worked out by a mathematician, manipulation of that system gave the world Hitler. Lenin had support from many countries, because he proposed a democratic system for Russia, a socialist democracy. But I do agree with your statements it is a word tossed around allot with very little understanding. Democracy is not capitalism or free market, but by many who use the word today one would think they are one in the same.

A very famous person once said, Democracy it’s not the best but it’s the best we have. i still tend to agree with that statement.





After 1.5 years on the forums, I can't hear this word - "democracy". It sets my teeth on edge. This vague concept is chewed, and chewed, and chewed... and no one can give a reasonable clear explanation what is the ideal form of democracy, where it really exists, and, what's most important, why all countries should have absolutely same form of democracy, and why some countries are judged much more strictly than others. I could continue, but what's the use?

I suspect that no one is really clued up on this subject, and this concept, democracy, is just an instrument used for quite different purposes.

Amen.

fenrir
18-12-2007, 09:43
A very famous person once said, Democracy it’s not the best but it’s the best we have.

I 100% agree.

TGP
18-12-2007, 22:41
Democracy, is an Ideal, something to try an achieve.

Look, on paper communism, is an ideal, but due to human nature it didn’t work quite that well, cant work that well. Democracy is also good on paper, but once again it to can be corrupted. Even Germany was a democracy with an electoral system worked out by a mathematician, manipulation of that system gave the world Hitler. Lenin had support from many countries, because he proposed a democratic system for Russia, a socialist democracy. But I do agree with your statements it is a word tossed around allot with very little understanding. Democracy is not capitalism or free market, but by many who use the word today one would think they are one in the same.

A very famous person once said, Democracy it’s not the best but it’s the best we have. i still tend to agree with that statement.


Communism never existed, in no country. It's really an ideal and the most perfect organization of a society, but, unfortunatelly, unreachable.

Democracy supposedly exists, but since this notion is too often used for achieving unseemly purposes which are far from being noble and fair, I wouldn't say it's the best we have. Maybe those who were trying to create a democratic society, sincerely believed in the "real democracy" (those who were trying to build communism also believed they would do it), but now democracy is just a fetish and screen for deeds and actions which are far from being aimed at the welfare of the demos, especially demos in foreign countries.
The crusades were also made for the sake of Jesus Christ.

Clean32
19-12-2007, 08:14
Communism never existed, in no country. It's really an ideal and the most perfect organization of a society, but, unfortunatelly, unreachable.

Democracy supposedly exists, but since this notion is too often used for achieving unseemly purposes which are far from being noble and fair, I wouldn't say it's the best we have. Maybe those who were trying to create a democratic society, sincerely believed in the "real democracy" (those who were trying to build communism also believed they would do it), but now democracy is just a fetish and screen for deeds and actions which are far from being aimed at the welfare of the demos, especially demos in foreign countries.
The crusades were also made for the sake of Jesus Christ.

I think you may not have understood completely my prev post.

The main differences between Hagalisum (begets communism) and democracy is that democracy ( in theory) Government is accountable to the populace, where with communism government is above the law. to put it another way, movement is accountable to its own laws, whitest communism it isn’t. that is the basics of hagalusim. Socialism, on the other hand is about looking after the little people, i.e. providing housing employment and pensions for the elderly. as for economy there is 2 lines there as well Kains and Adams, along with every flavor in between.

TGP what you are saying is (and I agree mainly) is that Russia has losed some of its socialism and most of it Kains. However V putin is recovering some of Russia Kains but with out implementing any socialism policies at the same time.

As for other countries, namely America, who is the biggest advocate for Adams but keeps its own borders controlled. The USA has and will use economic policy as a weapon. Trying to remove trade restrictions with other nations so that America can control there economy and thus control that country.

In short TGP you are confusing ( understandably) democracy for economic policy, Democracy is good but it is no replacement for bad economic policy. communism failed because of economic policy.

There is a famous quote, I cant remember it word for word, but it was by JFKs father, " I care not who makes the laws, I only care about who controls the economy. For it is who controls the economy is who decides what laws are made) and that’s about it in a nut shell.

TGP
20-12-2007, 01:09
It's a theory, Clean, and I mean something else. I don't confuse anything, I make conclusions based on the reality. The reality shows - and you partially confirmed it - that the USA use economic policy as a weapon, but state they advocate democracy and fight for it ( I don't even want to discuss if it is normal - to spread democracy by force). Yes, you are right, it's a wish to keep other nations/countries under control, nothing else. I don't mean only Russia, though it is probably the main task of the USA (though, Obama stated that if he wins, he will concentrate all efforts on fighting with the main enemies of the USA, that is Russia and China). Democracy in this policy is only a banner. As someone wrote here, the USA does not care if there is democracy in Russia or not (or in Georgia, or in Yugoslavia, or Belorussia, or in Ukraine, and so on), and I mean this very '"democracy".

Clean32
20-12-2007, 01:25
It's a theory, Clean, and I mean something else. I don't confuse anything, I make conclusions based on the reality. The reality shows - and you partially confirmed it - that the USA use economic policy as a weapon, but state they advocate democracy and fight for it ( I don't even want to discuss if it is normal - to spread democracy by force). Yes, you are right, it's a wish to keep other nations/countries under control, nothing else. I don't mean only Russia, though it is probably the main task of the USA (though, Obama stated that if he wins, he will concentrate all efforts on fighting with the main enemies of the USA, that is Russia and China). Democracy in this policy is only a banner. As someone wrote here, the USA does not care if there is democracy in Russia or not (or in Georgia, or in Yugoslavia, or Belorussia, or in Ukraine, and so on), and I mean this very '"democracy".

Correct BUT, once again you are using the word democracy, there are many democratic countries that have not Sercombe to American economic influence, in fact that is one of the strengths of a good democracy ( America is not a good democracy)
Look at the Australian elections, how much of that was a GO HOME YANK VOTE.

My main point is, that what you believe is democracy is not democracy, it is economic policy. Two totally different things, this is where you are wrong. What you see and read is not the result of good democracy. It is the result of bad economic policy and economic influence, both external and internal. Just because some parties and America call it democracy, don’t make it true. If you think it though why would America want any other country to be a true democracy that would just make that country harder to control.

Surfsup37
20-12-2007, 17:49
Uh, Clean

What exactly are/were NZ troops doing in the following countries? I assume based on complaints above, they were in the process of colonization.

New Zealand troops in East Timor.

New Zealand in troops Bosnia and Herzegovina

New Zealand troops in Afghanistan

New Zealand troops are used to restore order to the Solomon Islands.


Oh, wait a second what are you doing at home?

2007 October - Police arrest 17 people in anti-terror raids. Prosecutors accuse Maori activists of planning a violent campaign against the country's white majority. Old colonial habits die hard, I guess. :duhhhh:

TGP
21-12-2007, 01:28
Correct BUT, once again you are using the word democracy, there are many democratic countries that have not Sercombe to American economic influence, in fact that is one of the strengths of a good democracy ( America is not a good democracy)
Look at the Australian elections, how much of that was a GO HOME YANK VOTE.

My main point is, that what you believe is democracy is not democracy, it is economic policy. Two totally different things, this is where you are wrong. What you see and read is not the result of good democracy. It is the result of bad economic policy and economic influence, both external and internal. Just because some parties and America call it democracy, don’t make it true. If you think it though why would America want any other country to be a true democracy that would just make that country harder to control.

Yes, economic policy, and only economic policy underlies all attacks on Russia, and since it is covered by 'democracy", the word (and the concept) is distorted. In this context 'democracy' became a synonym of hypocrisy, double standards and mere verbiage, and I consider it accordingly. When they start bashing Russia for "lack of democracy", I immediately get bored. As I said, they are doing this not because they are really worried about democracy in Russia, but because they have absolutely different fear. (BTW, why they never critisize, say, China for lack of democracy?).

Again, I mean THIS VERY PERVETED IDEA OF DEMOCRACY, or this screen, or whatever it is, and not democracy as a social system.

Besides, I suspect that many people who sincerely believe that they live in a democratic society and enjoy all its benefits, are actually fooled by their government, and are not so free as they think they are. But it's another topic.

OK, I hope I managed to explain why I don't take seriously the "democracy". :)

Clean32
21-12-2007, 12:12
Yes, economic policy, and only economic policy underlies all attacks on Russia, and since it is covered by 'democracy", the word (and the concept) is distorted. In this context 'democracy' became a synonym of hypocrisy, double standards and mere verbiage, and I consider it accordingly. When they start bashing Russia for "lack of democracy", I immediately get bored. As I said, they are doing this not because they are really worried about democracy in Russia, but because they have absolutely different fear. (BTW, why they never critisize, say, China for lack of democracy?)..

For Russia i agree, it is a rather new concept, and it was "sold" to russians as an economic dream.


Again, I mean THIS VERY PERVETED IDEA OF DEMOCRACY, or this screen, or whatever it is, and not democracy as a social system. .

Yes it is a socal system, but i suspect its not a sistem that you have had any exsperiance of yet


Besides, I suspect that many people who sincerely believe that they live in a democratic society and enjoy all its benefits, are actually fooled by their government, and are not so free as they think they are. But it's another topic.

Again true, but not all, at the top of the list of deceved is russia and america


OK, I hope I managed to explain why I don't take seriously the "democracy". :)

yes good thanks.

Clean32
21-12-2007, 12:57
I suspect you already know the answers to your questions, but have decided to post these questions as a distortion, IE you are just being a wanker.
I will address these questions, not for you but for the majority of people on this site who have little knowledge or news of what happens on the othere side of the world.
But as my post is mainly about American influence, you post is off topic, but then that’s your motivation, LOL quoting American headlines


Uh, Clean

What exactly are/were NZ troops doing in the following countries? I assume based on complaints above, they were in the process of colonization.

Britain colonized, America colonized, NZ lol you have to be joking

New Zealand troops in East Timor.

NZ and Australian troops are in East Timor, If any one knows the history of ET they will understand, ET was a colony or Portugal until 1970?, as soon as they were given independence from Portugal they were invaded by Indonesia.
When the. The Indonesians pulled out a few years ago leaving ET in a very impoverished state, but Indonesia policy was to still raid across the border, insurgents etc, hence the newly formed ET government firstly asked Australia and then NZ to assist with securing there land border. I think at this time there are about 40 NZ solders in ET. 40 = a large invasion force yes? More so when 1/2 of them a medical core LOL




New Zealand in troops Bosnia and Herzegovina

Yes, working under the British


New Zealand troops in Afghanistan

Construction building schools medical etc etc


New Zealand troops are used to restore order to the Solomon Islands.

Yes unarmed IE NO guns



Oh, wait a second what are you doing at home?

2007 October - Police arrest 17 people in anti-terror raids. Prosecutors accuse Maori activists of planning a violent campaign against the country's white majority. Old colonial habits die hard, I guess.

And would you like to tell the rest of the story ?? or would you like to leave this headline standing??, i think you would like to leave it as it is, LOL

But there is one thing, Nothing posted above has any thing to do with American influence, well apart from the fact that America sold Indonesia a shit load of guns, F18s etc, but then Russia sold them there instant Navy of 120 ships LOL. Who the hell needs 300 Fighter aircraft and 120 navy ships in the pacific ??

Now shall we go though the American news papers? and pull out headlines??

But then the real test would be how many NZ solders were killed in action while invading these places? Do you have that number?? Would you like to post that number ??

Or would you like to answer how many countries has America got troupes, how many countries is America colonizing? How many countries has America got economical control over ?, how many countries has America invaded in the last 50 yeas?

But I think you don’t want to answer that do you?

Surfsup37
21-12-2007, 13:46
Yes, I knew the answer, but your point seems to be that Americans are using force or economic power to to colonize foreign lands. My point is that it is easy to make wide sweeping generalizations which in fact have little meaning.

Your comments

Correct BUT, once again you are using the word democracy, there are many democratic countries that have not Sercombe to American economic influence, in fact that is one of the strengths of a good democracy ( America is not a good democracy)

If you know anything about the US system, then you would know that under the parliamentary system the leader, Prime minister, has a lot more power than a US president. If you are arguing that the American system is ineffective, because his/her power is limited, then I misunderstood.

Just so that I better understand. Could you name please name those American colonies? I seem to have mislaid my list.

If you want to go by where American troops or bases, then I can help. Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, and South Korea have the largest bases I believe. I think this link i old, but somewhat reliable. The US no longer has bases in the Phillipenes, Saudi Arabia, and it has pulled most of it troops out of Germany.

American Military Bases Around the World (http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm)

Sal, how does it feel to be living in an US colony? :drink:

Clean32
21-12-2007, 15:55
Yes, I knew the answer, but your point seems to be that Americans are using force or economic power to to colonize foreign lands. My point is that it is easy to make wide sweeping generalizations which in fact have little meaning.

Your comments

Correct BUT, once again you are using the word democracy, there are many democratic countries that have not Sercombe to American economic influence, in fact that is one of the strengths of a good democracy ( America is not a good democracy)

Control is a better word than colonize, it has been the main part of USA forren policy since the 1950


If you know anything about the US system, then you would know that under the parliamentary system the leader, Prime minister, has a lot more power than a US president. If you are arguing that the American system is ineffective, because his/her power is limited, then I misunderstood.

But i do know, and i didnt state that a US presidents power is more limited i was Stating that a US president has at times been given powers that hold his actions above the law. as to a primeminister haveing more power than a US president, well thats rubbish and shows you limited knowlege of the westminster system, also i may add that at no time has any prime minister be in a position where thay are not accountable to there countrys Law ( in a democrocy)



Just so that I better understand. Could you name please name those American colonies? I seem to have mislaid my list.

If you want to go by where American troops or bases, then I can help. Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, and South Korea have the largest bases I believe. I think this link i old, but somewhat reliable. The US no longer has bases in the Phillipenes, Saudi Arabia, and it has pulled most of it troops out of Germany.

American Military Bases Around the World (http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm)

Sal, how does it feel to be living in an US colony? :drink:
In anwser to both you questions above would you like to list the counties where american armed forces are at the the moment, rather than just the american bases like you have

Sal how do you like haveing the american army in Italy, and how long thay have been there, IE like greenland since 1917 etc

offimacilioge
22-12-2007, 00:03
"Если известно о чем идет речь, то все ясно. Если неизвестно, то речь идет о деньгах...."

Корпорация Intway предлагает Каждому - Полнейший набор уникальных практических Инструментов для Вашей работы в Internet.

С помощью IntWay у вас появится возможность создать свой бизнес в интернете.
Основные бизнес-инструменты Intway:
Фондовый рынок США;
Глобально-Бонусная (партнерская) программа Intway;
Интернет-коммерция и Весь спектр Интернет-сервисов Intway!

Также Вы сможете заполучить ряд необычайных возможностей для реализации своего ежедневного пассивного заработка.

Загляните на наш сайт и Вы получите полную гарантию поддержки и обучения по ведению бизнеса и заработку в интернете с помощью корпорации IntWay.
URL:IntWay: акции и инвестиции, ипотечное кредитование, финансовые сервисы, ваши магазины, виртуальный офис. (http://intway.cv.ua)
Ключевые слова:
intway (http://intway.cv.ua)
ипотечное кредитование (http://intway.cv.ua)

TGP
22-12-2007, 19:27
"Если известно о чем идет речь, то все ясно. Если неизвестно, то речь идет о деньгах...."

Корпорация Intway предлагает Каждому - Полнейший набор уникальных практических Инструментов для Вашей работы в Internet.

С помощью IntWay у вас появится возможность создать свой бизнес в интернете.
Основные бизнес-инструменты Intway:
Фондовый рынок США;
Глобально-Бонусная (партнерская) программа Intway;
Интернет-коммерция и Весь спектр Интернет-сервисов Intway!

Также Вы сможете заполучить ряд необычайных возможностей для реализации своего ежедневного пассивного заработка.

Загляните на наш сайт и Вы получите полную гарантию поддержки и обучения по ведению бизнеса и заработку в интернете с помощью корпорации IntWay.
URL:IntWay: акции и инвестиции, ипотечное кредитование, финансовые сервисы, ваши магазины, виртуальный офис. (http://intway.cv.ua)
Ключевые слова:
intway (http://intway.cv.ua)
ипотечное кредитование (http://intway.cv.ua)

:yikes: :nut: :yikes: :wazzup:

Packman
24-12-2007, 13:34
Indeed several recent US presidents have believed themselves above the law, Nixon and Boy George. Nevertheless they have much less freedom and power to implement their agenda than in the PM type systems as the opposition often has control of the legislature, where a PM is the leader of the legislature.

Clean32
24-12-2007, 14:11
Indeed several recent US presidents have believed themselves above the law, Nixon and Boy George. Nevertheless they have much less freedom and power to implement their agenda than in the PM type systems as the opposition often has control of the legislature, where a PM is the leader of the legislature.


True, if you apply American thinking but what about caucus (Spelling?), MPs crossing the floor and lastly it is the voters who decide who sits in parliament. its is up to the parties themselves to work out a coalition etc so in practice you are wrong. there is also a vote of no confidence in parliament that can remove a prime minister, as well as a caucus can replace its prime minister, or at least call for new elections, nothing like that can happen in America, the most that can happen is the opposition can run interference, and that only equals no government. But then interference can happen under the Westminster system.
Although not the Westminster system but that is how Hitler got power in Germany. he efectivly froze germanys goverment ablity to do anything.
Neither system is ideal, I just think that the Westminster first past the post system is the better and safer by far.

I very simple terms think like this. The US resident runs the country; the house of representatives is a safe guard against the president. The House of Representatives gives power to the president to do what he wants (within limits, depending on the wording)

The prime minister can not do a thing with out a majority, absolutely nothing with out cabinet support. IE every thing is voted on.

edward621
24-12-2007, 14:23
In China,As i know,Most people find that USA is not qualified to effect Russia.

Do you remember that 70 years ago Russia is how much strong?

USA can not effect Russia include China.

I say no.

Clean32
24-12-2007, 15:17
What?? 1937, soviet russia was still a mess, china was mostly over run by the japanese?? what are you talking about??




In China,As i know,Most people find that USA is not qualified to effect Russia.

Do you remember that 70 years ago Russia is how much strong?

USA can not effect Russia include China.

I say no.

Mvlzac
25-12-2007, 06:06
Obama is a great man...... truly honestly and deeply tell you that.
The future of the US depends on him….
Respect is the answer.



Nowadays American elites respect nothing.

Clean 32
29-12-2007, 11:34
In China,As i know,Most people find that USA is not qualified to effect Russia.

Do you remember that 70 years ago Russia is how much strong?

USA can not effect Russia include China.

I say no.


How could you think that?

we are great!!! and you are not!!!!

Thats all.....:cussing: