Kerry’s hypocrisy

[Kuciwalker]

Of course you can say that. We were fighting for a democracy that would STAY a democracy, and not immediately revert to dictatorship.

[Pax]

1. The vietnamese people won there freedom through years of war with the French in spite of the U.S. aid to France. During Dien Bien Phu the U.S. even offered to give nukes to france to drop on the Vietnamese.
What right does the U.S. have to open it's mouth about what type of government Vietnam has before or after that? None. These people were fighting against tyranny. How come we did not come to there aid. Our policy was not flawed. It was wrong. We were obviously were not interested in democracy, just as we support countries today that are not democracy. I applaud John Kerry who was probably tired of seeing people he knew go off to fight and die for BS reasons. Reasons that should be obviously wrong.

The mistake of the U.S. during that time and now is to support governments that are corrupt or out touch with the people. For every Germany there's 2 or more Iran's. I think that our last real ally is probably Great Britain.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
I note, Sava, that you have hard feelings about Serbia. Will you ever get over that?

yeah that was 5 years ago doofus

My Dad fought in WWII against the Japanese. To his dying day, he had nothing whatever good to say about them. Nothing. He remained their bitter enemy to the end.

Ask any Asian who was alive prior to the end of WWII and they will say the same thing about the Japanese.

People who lived the horror do not forget.

there's a difference between remembering the past and being totally obsessed with a presidential candidate's actions after HE SERVED honorably, saving lives...

Democracy is nothing?

Democracy cannot be imposed. It must come from within.

And Ned, where are your principles of Democracy when you watch Fox News or shop at Walmart? You are giving direct support to Stalinist China.

[Admiral]

The problem with involvement in Vietnam, even if we ignore the denial of the '56 elections, was that it was not a choice between a democratic government and an autocratic communist government. We were choosing between a pro-American dictator, and a pro-Soviet popular movement. We justify Vietnam by saying it is a fight for democracy, but our support of Diem is just as unfortunate as our support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war.
You who claim that American foreign policy post WWII is shaped by being a defender of democracy would do well to reconsider. We have been consistently propping up pro-US regimes that are just as totalitarian as anything the Soviet's supported. For every Pol Pot there is a Pinochet, or a Diem. If the transfer of power from pro-US to pro-Soviet only means the transfer of power from one totalitarian state to another, why should we intervene?
Finally, communism itself is not the anathema that some seem to see it as. It originated as a popular movement against authoritarian rule, and admittedly did sink to the level of nazism under Stalin. Yet, outside the Soviet Union, communism has not been all bad. Castro was a much better leader than Baptista, and before the inposition of US sanctions, Cuba experienced a renaissance, with mass popular support for Castro and his programs. Numerous other times, people have been elected in the Americas on leftist, verging on socialist platforms, without any real support or backing from the Soviet Union. Yet, in many of those countries, the US has intervened, against a legitimately elected government, and imposed a right-wing government that, upon occasion, did not even possess the vestiges of democracy.
In other words, calling the US a defender of democracy is like calling the 19th century British defenders of self-determination of non-European nations.

[Sava]

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
Democracy cannot be imposed. It must come from within.

Germany and Japan put the lie to this.

And Ned, where are your principles of Democracy when you watch Fox News or shop at Walmart? You are giving direct support to Stalinist China.

Uh, Sava, China is not and never has been Stalinist

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
Germany and Japan put the lie to this.

Germany had Democracy before we went in there... we literally liberated them. WIth Japan... well, we nuked them twice, firebombed all their cities killing hundreds of thousands more. We broke their spirit. So yeah, those are unique situations. BTW, we also had to fully mobilize the country, taxes were 90% for the top bracket... if you want that kind of commitment again, be my guest.

Uh, Sava, China is not and never has been Stalinist

yes, they are a utopia and mecca of democracy

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
Germany had Democracy before we went in there... we literally liberated them. WIth Japan... well, we nuked them twice, firebombed all their cities killing hundreds of thousands more. We broke their spirit. So yeah, those are unique situations. BTW, we also had to fully mobilize the country, taxes were 90% for the top bracket... if you want that kind of commitment again, be my guest.
yes, they are a utopia and mecca of democracy

Germany never had a democracy, unless you count the government that the Allies set up and Hitler hijacked... if we'd stayed in there, Hitler wouldn't have become a problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
yes, they are a utopia and mecca of democracy

They're MAOIST, not Stalinist. Duh.

(Actually, now they're just corrupt, but that's not the point.)

[oedo]

Originally posted by skywalker Germany never had a democracy, unless you count the government that the Allies set up and Hitler hijacked... if we'd stayed in there, Hitler wouldn't have become a problem.

Germany was a democracy between 1918 and 1933, the so called Weimarer Republik.
After Reichstag (Feb 27th 1933) Hitler turned it into a dictatorship.

[Ned]

Pax, I said it before and I will say it again, you make some very good points about what happened in 1956. My rejoinder is simple. To allow elections in 1956 would have meant placing the entire country under the sway of the Communist Party. Despite what you may think of communism, one thing we know for sure is that Communists do not permit democracy to function. They are single-party totalitarian governments. To keep faith with our commitment to democracy, we had to prevent a Communist takeover even if that takeover was by democratic means.

We are doing something substantially similar in Iraq today. We are preventing the Shi'ites from a forming an Islamic Republic which is not democratic even if the majority of the Iraqis would vote that way.

[Hueij]

We are preventing the Shi'ites from a forming an Islamic Republic which is not democratic even if the majority of the Iraqis would vote that way.

Quote of the year... Democracy is not about what a majority wants but what Ned thinks is the best for them

[Bosh]

For every Pol Pot there is a Pinochet, or a Diem.

Actually the US supported Pol Pot and was outraged when the Vietnamese took him down.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Hueij

We are preventing the Shi'ites from a forming an Islamic Republic which is not democratic even if the majority of the Iraqis would vote that way.

Quote of the year... Democracy is not about what a majority wants but what Ned thinks is the best for them

Actually, I was just watching the news and Bremer said pretty much the same thing. American conception of democracy includes protection of minority rights as an essential ingredient. So, even if the majority wanted to ban all minority parties, we should never agree to allow such a thing happen on our watch.

[MrFun]

Fine -- ignore the last point that I made.