NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it possible? Shock! Horror! Is it possible that the US doesn't have all the answers?An alternative way. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4724807.stm)

Sounds good, but they really should have freedom of speech.

Sounds good, but they really should have freedom of speech.

It'll come.It seems like they have freedom of speech but not freedom of the press. By that report it seems that things are changing steadily.

Sounds good, but they really should have freedom of speech.

Possibly, but that's the point. Despite the anti-American title I punched up here, I'm not anti-anyone but if these people want this way of life, as we want ours, who are we to lecture them?

Possibly, but that's the point. Despite the anti-American title I punched up here, I'm not anti-anyone but if these people want this way of life, as we want ours, who are we to lecture them?

Exactly.

Possibly, but that's the point. Despite the anti-American title I punched up here, I'm not anti-anyone but if these people want this way of life, as we want ours, who are we to lecture them?
Who's lecturing them? It sounds to me like everyone is leaving them alone.

Possibly, but that's the point. Despite the anti-American title I punched up here, I'm not anti-anyone but if these people want this way of life, as we want ours, who are we to lecture them?

America has been lecturing everything ever since Truman decided to throw money at the more poorer countries during the Cold War to influence democracy...

The real reason why the U.S is always doing what it does.. is because it can, that simple

An Alternative Way... (http://www.nrc.nl/images/chirac,7.jpg)

It sounds like a stable country with happy citizens... that is more than many western democracies can claim.

America has been lecturing everything ever since Truman decided to throw money at the more poorer countries during the Cold War to influence democracy...

The real reason why the U.S is always doing what it does.. is because it can, that simple

That act of genorosity, unparalelled in history, earned America the respect of all nations. Unfortunately that love and respect has been squandered.

It sounds like a stable country with happy citizens... that is more than many western democracies can claim.

Fact.

To be honest, whilst i am no fan of the current wave of American Imperialism, the idea of a cuddly theocracy with very limited democracy and no freedom of speech kinda makes American democracy look very attractive indeed. I wonder what the people of Dubai would think if their rulers didn't have massive oil revenues to bribe them with.

That act of genorosity, unparalelled in history, earned America the respect of all nations. Unfortunately that love and respect has been squandered.

If you are talking of the Marshall plan, then, yes, agreed.

If you are talking of the continued throwing of American "aid" for political purposes throughout the Cold War, then disagreed.

This is one country. Keep that in mind. Not all non-democractic countries in the Middle East have "regular open meetings where citizens can air concerns". UAE sounds like it has a great government, though. Very similar to my NS nation.

If you are talking of the Marshall plan, then, yes, agreed.

If you are talking of the continued throwing of American "aid" for political purposes throughout the Cold War, then disagreed.

No, the Marshal plan. What a heroic moment that was. It was not entirely unselfish but only anti-Americans could find any wrong in such a magnificent act.

If they're happy and comfortable, then that's fine with me.

I'll go with Potaria on this one.

To be honest, whilst i am no fan of the current wave of American Imperialism, the idea of a cuddly theocracy with very limited democracy and no freedom of speech kinda makes American democracy look very attractive indeed. I wonder what the people of Dubai would think if their rulers didn't have massive oil revenues to bribe them with.

I think they are not being bribed, they just happen to live in a wealthy country. Does your country "bribe" you by offering welfare should you fall on hard times?

One of the main problems most Americans seem to have is to get it into their minds that not everybody on this planet absolutely needs and craves a democracy (and only a democracy) to feel a happy and free person. Any dictatorship can grant you almost exactly the same rights without handing you the same duties...
Democracy is a European/American/Western concept which cannot simply be thrown at other cultures. It won't fit. Other cultures need to come up with other solutions, other possibilities and other options that fit their believes and traditions. Trying to force our own concepts on them won't work, it might make things a lot worse. Just let them figure it out for themselves, they will eventually, they don't need Europe or the US constantly telling them what to do.

As one Thai friend of mine once said "There were morals in Siam even before Anna Leonowens, but Westerners choose to ignore that"

To be honest, whilst i am no fan of the current wave of American Imperialism, the idea of a cuddly theocracy with very limited democracy and no freedom of speech kinda makes American democracy look very attractive indeed. I wonder what the people of Dubai would think if their rulers didn't have massive oil revenues to bribe them with.

There are a myriad of 'what ifs'. What if Americas deficit led to financial ruin? What if? What if? The point is that each nation should be left to manage its own affairs and those where despots rule should also be left to bring about their own salvation. All successful countries have been their own saviors. And of course, I'm not talking about situations like 1939, where a whole series of nations were brutally subjugated.

No, the Marshal plan. What a heroic moment that was. It was not entirely unselfish but only anti-Americans could find any wrong in such a magnificent act.

So, pointing out that is was selfish makes you anti-American, doesn't it? ;)

The Galgamack vagina is ten feet wide and lned with razor-sharp teeth. How do you expect us to have sex with that?
Okay, what may work on Galgamack, may not necessarily work here.
From the wise words of South Park.

I think they are not being bribed, they just happen to live in a wealthy country. Does your country "bribe" you by offering welfare should you fall on hard times?

One of the main problems most Americans seem to have is to get it into their minds that not everybody on this planet absolutely needs and craves a democracy (and only a democracy) to feel a happy and free person. Any dictatorship can grant you almost exactly the same rights without handing you the same duties...
Democracy is a European/American/Western concept which cannot simply be thrown at other cultures. It won't fit. Other cultures need to come up with other solutions, other possibilities and other options that fit their believes and traditions. Trying to force our own concepts on them won't work, it might make things a lot worse. Just let them figure it out for themselves, they will eventually, they don't need Europe or the US constantly telling them what to do.

As one Thai friend of mine once said "There were morals in Siam even before Anna Leonowens, but Westerners choose to ignore that"

I disagree, actually. I don't believe the argument that just because a country has a different history and culture, democracy somehow "doesn't fit" the inhabitants.

I will agree on one level though - that this does not mean we need to aggressively export democracy, a la the USA. Yeah, let them figure it out for themselves. But, for instance, has anyone whilst giving Dubai a thumbs up, checked out the Human Rights record for the place?

So, pointing out that is was selfish makes you anti-American, doesn't it? ;)

No, it wasn't selfish but obviously America needed a healthy financial environment and its noble act created that. No other country, in a similar position, has done anything remotely similar.

I think this man may have some of the answers for an alternative way...

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-jacques_chirac_france.jpg

, has anyone whilst giving Dubai a thumbs up, checked out the Human Rights record for the place?

Look up the USA record.

I think this man may have some of the answers for an alternative way...

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-jacques_chirac_france.jpg

What small hands. You know what they say about small hands...............

Look up the USA record.
Zing!

There are a myriad of 'what ifs'. What if Americas deficit led to financial ruin? What if? What if? The point is that each nation should be left to manage its own affairs and those where despots rule should also be left to bring about their own salvation. All successful countries have been their own saviors. And of course, I'm not talking about situations like 1939, where a whole series of nations were brutally subjugated.

Those where despots rule should be left?

No, i can't agree with this. ONE NATION should not set itself up as moral arbiter, using it's world wide strength and influence to construct a spurious "Coalition of the Willing". I'll agree with that. But, on the other hand, where a broad consensus of nations agrees - like, say, the UN did over Bosnia/Serbia etc - then the despots should be removed.

Of course, the calculation of "who gets removed" shouldn't just take into account consensus, but how bad the crimes, how realistic the goal, the consequences etc.

Look up the USA record.

Agreed! But then, i'm not defending the USA :)

I disagree, actually. I don't believe the argument that just because a country has a different history and culture, democracy somehow "doesn't fit" the inhabitants.

I will agree on one level though - that this does not mean we need to aggressively export democracy, a la the USA. Yeah, let them figure it out for themselves. But, for instance, has anyone whilst giving Dubai a thumbs up, checked out the Human Rights record for the place?

I think that democracy isn't something that can be exported. In Europe and America, it evolved. The democracies we have now are the results of several hundreds of years of trial and error and learning from mistakes in the past, so they are tailored to our own societies and cultures. And that's why they wouldn't fit.

If you would try to apply the American constitution to Germany, for example, people wouldn't be neither willing nor able to live with that. If you placed the French democracy into the UK, the political and social system would collapse. So, while equality before the law and other democratic concepts can be held universal, no democracy ever is.
The demoratic principles are there, on display for everybody. The people who where interviewed clearly knew about them, but didn't consider them important enough to want them in their own country. I think we should stop trying to convert them...

I think that democracy isn't something that can be exported. In Europe and America, it evolved. The democracies we have now are the results of several hundreds of years of trial and error and learning from mistakes in the past, so they are tailored to our own societies and cultures. And that's why they wouldn't fit.

If you would try to apply the American constitution to Germany, for example, people wouldn't be neither willing nor able to live with that. If you placed the French democracy into the UK, the political and social system would collapse. So, while equality before the law and other democratic concepts can be held universal, no democracy ever is.
The demoratic principles are there, on display for everybody. The people who where interviewed clearly knew about them, but didn't consider them important enough to want them in their own country. I think we should stop trying to convert them...

I don't think we are disagreeing hugely here. I don't think one size fits all, i don't think we should simply export the American way of life with god, the flag and little concern over social welfare ;) But...but...there are rights which should be inalienable. And - whatever model of government chosen - the government should be held accountable for it. I mean, i wouldn't want to be a gay man in Dubai, would you? (leaving aside the fact that i wouldn't want to be a gay man anywhere, thats just my libido speaking *g*).

Look up the USA record.

Another anti-American showing his igronace, becoming very common on this forum.

I think that democracy isn't something that can be exported. In Europe and America, it evolved. The democracies we have now are the results of several hundreds of years of trial and error and learning from mistakes in the past, so they are tailored to our own societies and cultures. And that's why they wouldn't fit.



The tailoring part I agree with... But democracy doesn’t start out by evolving from something else. Democracy never seems to start without a lot of bullets and blood shed, unless one side has no ability to win and doesn't even try to fight (AKA Norway/Sweden).

Another anti-American showing his igronace, becoming very common on this forum.

Yes, anyone who mentions that America's had many civil rights issues is "anti-American"

:rolleyes:

So, here I go, trying to get someone to pin me as an arrogant American...

The problem with America is that the elections have become so partisan and not everyone is really properly represented. As it started out, it was good, but it has fallen far from there. Fortunately, we still choose who are leaders are...so when we don't like something, we can fix it. Our system is designed on perpetual trial and error. You may never have the system working perfectly, but it's pretty damn hard to break it.

In the UAE however, they may have these open and regular meetings where the citizens can voice their opinions now...but who is to say that will last, and what happens when these meetings cease to exist? What power do the citizens have if and when the government or one of their leaders fails them? In America, a system is in place, and the leaders unquestionably answer to populace. The same can not be said for the UAE, and that is why America's system, in my opinion, is better.

Yes, anyone who mentions that America's had many civil rights issues is "anti-American"

:rolleyes:

I never denied the fact that America has civil rights issues, I was merely pointing out that there are many people like you on this forum that appear to think that China, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq have a better human rights record then the United States. Are you guys really blinded so much by your hatred of the United States? Or do you just hate the idea of democracy and freedom too?

So, here I go, trying to get someone to pin me as an arrogant American...

The problem with America is that the elections have become so partisan and not everyone is really properly represented. As it started out, it was good, but it has fallen far from there. Fortunately, we still choose who are leaders are...so when we don't like something, we can fix it. Our system is designed on perpetual trial and error. You may never have the system working perfectly, but it's pretty damn hard to break it.

In the UAE however, they may have these open and regular meetings where the citizens can voice their opinions now...but who is to say that will last, and what happens when these meetings cease to exist? What power do the citizens have if and when the government or one of their leaders fails them? In America, a system is in place, and the leaders unquestionably answer to populace. The same can not be said for the UAE, and that is why America's system, in my opinion, is better.

I'd agree to a point with you. The problem i see with this "Dubai model" is firstly, there appears to be no constitutional protection for individuals, and secondly, who is to say in these "town hall" style meetings, the sheiks act upon the opinions they hear? Admittedly, the second one is as much a failing of democracy as in this model, but the first is very important.

I never denied the fact that America has civil rights issues, I was merely pointing out that there are many people like you on this forum that appear to think that China, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq have a better human rights record then the United States. Are you guys really blinded so much by your hatred of the United States? Or do you just hate the idea of democracy and freedom too?

Only an idiot would claim that the USA has similar human rights issues, or a similar record to, Iraq or China (although, and we must be clear here, the current administration have taken your human rights back a good deal).

I'd agree to a point with you. The problem i see with this "Dubai model" is firstly, there appears to be no constitutional protection for individuals, and secondly, who is to say in these "town hall" style meetings, the sheiks act upon the opinions they hear? Admittedly, the second one is as much a failing of democracy as in this model, but the first is very important.

There's no constitutional protection in the UK either. Tradition means a lot.

There's no constitutional protection in the UK either. Tradition means a lot.

There's a body of laws, an *independent* judiciary, and we are signatories to the EU charter of Human Rights (much to the chagrin, i admit, of the Daily Mail).

There's no constitutional protection in the UK either. Tradition means a lot.
The UK does not have an organized one-document consistution in the way that the US does...but they do have series of laws and agreements between the ruling class and the ruled that define the rights and responsbilities of the citizens.

Indeed, I see many Brits talking about "The UK's consitution".

IRC we don't have one.

Indeed, I see many Brits talking about "The UK's consitution".

IRC we don't have one.

We have one, it's just so nebulous and malleable (it consists of every law ever passed in the UK still in effect plus a bunch of conventions) that were it not for tradition we could easily be in a dictatorship (some say we are already).

I never denied the fact that America has civil rights issues, I was merely pointing out that there are many people like you on this forum that appear to think that China, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq have a better human rights record then the United States. Are you guys really blinded so much by your hatred of the United States? Or do you just hate the idea of democracy and freedom too?
Gee, you don't lay the generalizations down lightly. :rolleyes:

I never denied the fact that America has civil rights issues, I was merely pointing out that there are many people like you on this forum that appear to think that China, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq have a better human rights record then the United States. Are you guys really blinded so much by your hatred of the United States? Or do you just hate the idea of democracy and freedom too?China, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq aren't exactly the ones that went on a "crusade" to defend their "values". A country that does something like that deserves the utmost scrutiny.

The reason they are happy in the UAE is their government bribes them with goodies bought by oil money. If they were poor and the sheiks were robbing them blind to keep up their lavish lifestyles, they'd be singing a different tune.

I never denied the fact that America has civil rights issues, I was merely pointing out that there are many people like you on this forum that appear to think that China, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq have a better human rights record then the United States. Are you guys really blinded so much by your hatred of the United States? Or do you just hate the idea of democracy and freedom too?

The fuck? Nobody like me's ever said this (in fact, I can't remember anybody on this forum EVER saying anything to that effect).

You're the blind one. Get a clue, sheesh.

The fuck? Nobody like me's ever said this (in fact, I can't remember anybody on this forum EVER saying anything to that effect).

You're the blind one. Get a clue, sheesh.
Are you sure?

Gar! America,etc. etc. argh!

The reason they are happy in the UAE is their government bribes them with goodies bought by oil money. If they were poor and the sheiks were robbing them blind to keep up their lavish lifestyles, they'd be singing a different tune.

Would you prefer to be living a comfortable secure life under a benevolent autocrat or in poverty with democracy?

Are you sure? Gar! America,etc. etc. argh!

LOL!

Would you prefer to be living a comfortable secure life under a benevolent autocrat or in poverty with democracy?Maybe a corrupt democracy or one where voters sometimes get shot or blown up at the polls... Might make the choice even easier.

Only an idiot would claim that the USA has similar human rights issues, or a similar record to, Iraq or China (although, and we must be clear here, the current administration have taken your human rights back a good deal).

Ok, which human rights are you talking about?

Ok, which human rights are you talking about?
4th Amendment.

Ok, which human rights are you talking about?The right to free travel, I think...

The right to free travel, I think...

You can travel between the states freely.

4th Amendment.

When was the 4th abolished?

When was the 4th abolished?
Not so much abolished as completely ignored.

You can travel between the states freely.
Some people aren't allowed to use airplanes in the States. I don't understand how members of Peace Organizations are threats...

Some people aren't allowed to use airplanes in the States. I don't understand how members of Peace Organizations are threats...
Hmm, peace organizations, sure. Members of PETA? They definitely don't need to be on a plane.

Not so much abolished as completely ignored.


By whom? Where? When?

The fuck? Nobody like me's ever said this (in fact, I can't remember anybody on this forum EVER saying anything to that effect).

You're the blind one. Get a clue, sheesh.

You may never have come right out and said it, but the way you talk about America makes it seem like the worst country since Nazis Germany. Do you really believe that?

Agreed! But then, i'm not defending the USA :)

Fair enough!

Those where despots rule should be left?

No, i can't agree with this. ONE NATION should not set itself up as moral arbiter, using it's world wide strength and influence to construct a spurious "Coalition of the Willing". I'll agree with that. But, on the other hand, where a broad consensus of nations agrees - like, say, the UN did over Bosnia/Serbia etc - then the despots should be removed.

Of course, the calculation of "who gets removed" shouldn't just take into account consensus, but how bad the crimes, how realistic the goal, the consequences etc.

I actually agree to a............um, degree but again, who would judge the judges? And no nation seems too keen on removing the African tyrants.

Another anti-American showing his igronace, becoming very common on this forum.

Not anti-American. Can spell ignorance.

You may never have come right out and said it, but the way you talk about America makes it seem like the worst country since Nazis Germany. Do you really believe that?

I doubt very much indeed that it even crossed his mind. He uses his mind to think. You use what little you have to spout about what you know little of.

Guys - let's calm it down a little :)

Things seem to have been blown waaay out of proportion here.

For all the stuff you may read me writing on these forums - I don't dislike America myself, even if I am critical of the Administration. I have American family - and they're cool, so I don't have a problem with the USA...

Plus I like McFlurry's from McDonalds... :)

I actually agree to a............um, degree but again, who would judge the judges? And no nation seems too keen on removing the African tyrants.

Course they aren't, no oil.

cynic mode off.

Not anti-American. Can spell ignorance.

Wow, I misspelled a word. If you don't like it sue me, asshole.

Would you prefer to be living a comfortable secure life under a benevolent autocrat or in poverty with democracy?

Benevolent autocrat. Easy choice. It's also a heck of a lot cheaper for the people, since there's only one member of government to pay, and if he's really benevolent, then it'll be as free as a democracy without the pain of elections and political parties.

Wow, I misspelled a word. If you don't like it sue me, asshole.

The mis-spelling is irrelevent.........like you. Your feeble attempt at painting me as anti-American is wrong.
'Asshole' eh? Long may you continue to make your erudite and thoughtful contributions.

TBut, on the other hand, where a broad consensus of nations agrees - like, say, the UN did over Bosnia/Serbia etc - then the despots should be removed.



Hate to break this to you, but Clinton did not go to the UN over Serbia/Kosovo. Technically the war was in violation of the UN charter and even the NATO charter.

Clinton commenced the action because he was tired of waiting for the "European Allies" to clean up their own backyard. Note that it involved only limited and reluctant aid from the several European allies.You will also recollect that there were protests AGAINST the action in many European cities. What exactly was their moral stance is anyone's guess.

So, the action against Serbia broke with the UN, broke with NATO, ticked off people in Europe...yet it prevented a genocide from happening. I'd say that was all worth it ...especially if you are a Kosovar.


I will give it to you that OCCUPATION of Bosnia and Kosovo are UN peacekeeping missions.

The mis-spelling is irrelevent.........like you. Your feeble attempt at painting me as anti-American is wrong.
'Asshole' eh? Long may you continue to make your erudite and thoughtful contributions.

PlEaSe SiR fOrGiVe mY pOOr SPelLINg, sIr. i WaS BoRn iN cAnADa, SIr. a NAtiON rUn bY EVil ANd dIrTY lIBerALS WhO dO SPenD aLOt oN EdUCAtiON aND hEAlthCaRE BuT aLl tHE monEY gOes TOwaRDS laRGE salARies sO ThAT tHe POor ANd OVerWoRked DOctORS, NurSIES, aND teACheRS CaN REtirE eaRLy IN LifE sO ThAT ThEY cAN sPEnd mANy YEars IN peaCE AnD QUieT, siR.

sIGneD,
Jack the Ripper

CAtcH mE iF YoU cAN!

Is it possible? Shock! Horror! Is it possible that the US doesn't have all the answers?An alternative way. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4724807.stm)

That lovey dovey shit will last until something goes wrong (which it will) and then you'll get a dictatorship which is worse than a democracy.

That lovey dovey shit will last until something goes wrong (which it will) and then you'll get a dictatorship which is worse than a democracy.

Or a democracy which is worse than a dictatorship...

Good for them, im glad one country SOMEWHERE is doing OK without completly screwing things up

The citizens of Dubai are living in a Golden Prison.

The citizens of Dubai are living in a Golden Prison.

Makes the bars more obvious than the concrete one in which you and I live.

Let's face it, all forms of government are one step removed from dictatorship at the best of times.

It'll come.It seems like they have freedom of speech but not freedom of the press. By that report it seems that things are changing steadily.

Ahahahaha...yeah...just like in any capitalist country...
...the need of "freedom of press" is a need just for those capitalist bastards who could buy press and have it say whatever they plutocratic interests want it to say...there's no freedom of press if press is in the hands of capitalists!
Jashkar

Ahahahaha...yeah...just like in any capitalist country...
...the need of "freedom of press" is a need just for those capitalist bastards who could buy press and have it say whatever they plutocratic interests want it to say...there's no freedom of press if press is in the hands of capitalists!
Jashkar

Hey! I'm a commie too! I just try to stop every topic going onto the old commies evil/capitalists evil argument.

No, the Marshal plan. What a heroic moment that was. It was not entirely unselfish but only anti-Americans could find any wrong in such a magnificent act.

Marshal plan was part of the activities undergone to keep the "frontier lands" of Europe out of "Socialist Block"...together with massive anti-communist propaganda campaigns and obviously...Stand Behind...

Obviously none denies that individual private American citizens could have true altruistic motives to send aids to Europe after World War, just like it's entirely possible that individual private American citizens could volounteer to go in war to do something they thought "altruistic"...but definitely American Government didn't reason in terms of "altruism"...in first place no Government does that...in second place that would definitely not happen to a corporate-run State!
Jashkar

Hey! I'm a commie too! I just try to stop every topic going onto the old commies evil/capitalists evil argument.

Hihihi...well, sorry comrade for expressing me in too "stadium-like" terms ( :D )...but the concept stays.

While it's definitely true that in a modern Country freedom of speech isn't much without freedom of press, it's also truth that since people owning media don't allow freedom of speech in them, allowing freedom of press is often just a way for the rich to have their way to manipulate people.

Obviously everyone would appreciate a "real" freedom of "press"...that's obvious...but when we ask it, we really understand the consequences of our requests?

Here in Italy there was a State monopoly on television...as far as I've been told by older people there was censure (sometimes pretty stupid censure) and news were controlled too, but for example advertising was controlled and decent and political interviews were seriously made...

Lefists in the '60s asked for "freedom" in that place...and now we've few capitalist controlling most media, stupid advertising all the time and very very bad "boot-licking" politica interviews...and also here if you say something like that people in an invaded Country have the right to defend themselves you run serious risks of being smeared and even suffer problems with law...

...do you fancy yourself?
It's a so simple normal concept...should my Country be invaded I'll kill anyone invading it and so I could definitely understand anyone doing it...now that's a taboo and a dangerous thing to print or say here in this "free" Country...
Jashkar

Since when did quotes from citizens matter. The BBC can write whatever it wants, and I am sure anyone can find 5 happy citizens to back them up.

Since when did quotes from citizens matter. The BBC can write whatever it wants, and I am sure anyone can find 5 happy citizens to back them up.

Well...anyone reading and agreeing with what media say would say that.
The truth is that even when they say that we're in a "free" Country, media say just what rich people owning them like them to say...
Jashkar

While it's definitely true that in a modern Country freedom of speech isn't much without freedom of press, it's also truth that since people owning media don't allow freedom of speech in them, allowing freedom of press is often just a way for the rich to have their way to manipulate people.

Obviously everyone would appreciate a "real" freedom of "press"...
Jashlar

Oh? So that means I get to walk in and put in "Capitalism is good" columns into the Daily Worker or other silly Communist publications anytime I feel like it? :p

*snicker*

I think we know the truthful answer to *that* one. :)

Oh? So that means I get to walk in and put in "Capitalism is good" columns into the Daily Worker or other silly Communist publications anytime I feel like it? :p

*snicker*

I think we know the truthful answer to *that* one. :)

And now try putting 'Immigration is good' in the Daily Mail. If I want opinions I'll buy the Commie Party Newsletter, if I want news I want it in the paper, instead I end up with thinly veiled opinion pieces.

And now try putting 'Immigration is good' in the Daily Mail. If I want opinions I'll buy the Commie Party Newsletter, if I want news I want it in the paper, instead I end up with thinly veiled opinion pieces.

All news carries some opinion even if it's just in what gets written about and what doesn't. That's why Freedom of the Press is important in the first place. To whinge about a person running a newspaper to suit himself is just plain silly. Don't like why not start your own media outlet? In this age of the blog that's pretty easy.

Oh? So that means I get to walk in and put in "Capitalism is good" columns into the Daily Worker or other silly Communist publications anytime I feel like it? :p

Oh...well...what's the problem if I could write "Capitalism is crap" columns in a silly Capitalist-controlled newspaper or publication? :D

Obviously your columns should be of a decent quality and have a decent knowledge backing, just like mine should have to use up space upon a media...but that's the concept...yes.

*snicker*

I think we know the truthful answer to *that* one. :)

Yeah...and what would be such an answer?
That commies wouldn't allow you?
Well...but you did move a finger to allow true freedom of press in all the heavily-financed capitalistic media which make up your certainties so steady?
Or you just want to not allow commies to say what you think?
For that's not "loving freedom"...that's "loving fascism" (and of the worst kind)...
Jashkar

Don't like why not start your own media outlet? In this age of the blog that's pretty easy.

Yeah...if your suggestion made any sense, then one could definitely say that in USSR, under Stalin and Berja, you could say whatever you wished...

...yeah...may be it's right...but I guess the location would have been under the bed in a lonely hut and you shouldn't have spoken too aloud.

In the big USSR that was pretty easy to find a lonely hut I guess...

Just to compare, that's a bull of the magnitude of the one you said, man.
Jashkar

Yeah...and what would be such an answer?
That commies wouldn't allow you?

Dingdingding! I think we have a winner! That's why your "concern" is so blatently a phony. :p

Well...but you did move a finger to allow true freedom of press in all the heavily-financed capitalistic media which make up your certainties so steady?

It was already there. :)

Or you just want to not allow commies to say what you think?

Well, you see. Right there is where you've just shown why communists are a gang of dimwits and villains who don't deserve to be trusted with power. *You* do not have the power to say what I think and for you to pretend otherwise was nothing more than pretension on your part. :upyours:

For that's not "loving freedom"...that's "loving fascism" (and of the worst kind)...
Jashkar

Like there's supposed to be a difference between fascism and the Red Fascism known as Communism? The fact is that Communists and Fascists are interchangible human beings. No real difference between Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and Hitler. They were all the same type of pigs. :)

Yeah...if your suggestion made any sense,...

Wow! So you somehow formed the impression that Newspapers and blogs just somehow create themselves out of nothing and that the people who own them never had anything to do with it? o_O

No, the Marshal plan. What a heroic moment that was. It was not entirely unselfish but only anti-Americans could find any wrong in such a magnificent act.

Ah yes, the Marshall plan. Wonderful aid to Europe after WW2 except Britian. Why? Not because Britain hadn't suffered as much as the others (It had suffered lots more than France for example) but because Labour got in after WW2 and Labour are socialists.

Oh...well...what's the problem if I could write "Capitalism is crap" columns in a silly Capitalist-controlled newspaper or publication? :D

Obviously your columns should be of a decent quality and have a decent knowledge backing, just like mine should have to use up space upon a media...but that's the concept...yes.



Yeah...and what would be such an answer?
That commies wouldn't allow you?
Well...but you did move a finger to allow true freedom of press in all the heavily-financed capitalistic media which make up your certainties so steady?
Or you just want to not allow commies to say what you think?
For that's not "loving freedom"...that's "loving fascism" (and of the worst kind)...
Jashkarcapitalist media??
how can you see mass media as capitalist?
they are almost as liberal as our school systems.
_________________________________________________________________

extremist liberals are greedy for power; they make promises impossible to keep. unchecked big business is greedy for riches; it decimates anything between it and its goal.

Of course a benevolent autocrat is a far far better system than the time consuming and expensive system of democracy.

The only problem is that rarely is an autocrat benevolent. Will the UAE be as lucky with the next ruler?

Well, you see. Right there is where you've just shown why communists are a gang of dimwits and villains who don't deserve to be trusted with power. *You* do not have the power to say what I think and for you to pretend otherwise was nothing more than pretension on your part. :upyours:

Yeah...I have the "power" to say whatever I wish as long as I have a brain, fingers and a tongue...that's a problem for you, Mr. Fascist? :D

Like there's supposed to be a difference between fascism and the Red Fascism known as Communism? The fact is that Communists and Fascists are interchangible human beings. No real difference between Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and Hitler. They were all the same type of pigs. :)

Thinking that Fascism, Nazism and Communism just show how lacking you are on the side of historical knowledge...

Nazism not even tried to fight Capitalism...it even gave jewish slaves to German Capital who wished a low-cost work force...also its aim was clearly at World Conquest, just like it's today for USA...

Fascism, at least Italian Fascism, had some social elements and they were there because Italy had very strong leftist movements...socialists
...anarchists...communists...and a very powerful Communist Party. So any force who wanted consensus had to "take away" revolutionary-minded people from leftist movements to have the proper force to fight those same movements for the Capital. As Capital "betrayed" the losing Mussolini, he had to call up the consensus again and to have a better control over the productive forces, so he started again leaning toward "social" element during the RSI...so if Italian Fascism has anything similar to Communism is because a share of its "human forces" was made up of deceived leftist revolutionaries...

But when I say that you like the Fascism of the worst kind I'm not definitely comparing the ideas you seem to support to Italian Fascism...noo...the ideas you seem to support haven't anything revolutionary or social in it...you're a pure and complete Fascist...just like USA are a pure and complete Fascist Government because are just a tool of brutal violence at the hand of Capital.

There's no attempt to hide that, but with ludicrous childish religious-Star Wars sounding lies...the USA are just a big gun tied to a dollar.

When I say you seem to "love Fascism" I mean that you seem to be a fascist of the new dire kind...an Americanist.

I've nothing against American people...I really think there are still true comrades in that capitalistic hell, notwithstanding the dire extermination and the witch-hunting campaigns run in the past against them and the ostracization that I guess commies get there...I hope American comrades will be one day free of their hell to live in a free America.

I've everything against Americanists...and since you sound to me a good "capitalist-lobby-boy"...a lover of "bringing freedom" stuffing a gun into someone else mouth and telling them what should they think...a "lover of freedom" which doesn't mind if people thinking differently gets tortured, threatened, beaten or silenced by the more or less compliant thugs of Capital...I shit upon such a "freedom" for that's the same kind of "freedom" offered by any dictatorship to those who kneel and bootlick!
Jashkar

It'll come.It seems like they have freedom of speech but not freedom of the press. By that report it seems that things are changing steadily.
As a resident of the USA, I can say that some of the media (especially the Boston Globe) remains free, whatever that might mean in a society that is increasingly propagandised by the Bush government. And certainly among some people, freedom of speech is a given, but I wouldn't want to voice my opinions in some parts of this country, most especially in states where religion and politics have become so enmeshed that one can no longer discern which is which. In many of those states, freedom of opinion seems to have fallen victim of the gun lobby and chauvinistic attitudes.

Americans are essentially no better and no worse than other peoples. The problem, I believe, is that many are terrorised by their own fears of 'the other' - thanks to 9/11 - and seek some kind of certainty and solace from the truly oldest professions: priests and politicians who are 'intelligent' enough to offer the masses the usual scapegoats.

Yeah...I have the "power" to say whatever I wish as long as I have a brain, fingers and a tongue...that's a problem for you, Mr. Fascist? :D



Thinking that Fascism, Nazism and Communism just show how lacking you are on the side of historical knowledge...

Nazism not even tried to fight Capitalism...it even gave jewish slaves to German Capital who wished a low-cost work force...also its aim was clearly at World Conquest, just like it's today for USA...

Fascism, at least Italian Fascism, had some social elements and they were there because Italy had very strong leftist movements...socialists
...anarchists...communists...and a very powerful Communist Party. So any force who wanted consensus had to "take away" revolutionary-minded people from leftist movements to have the proper force to fight those same movements for the Capital. As Capital "betrayed" the losing Mussolini, he had to call up the consensus again and to have a better control over the productive forces, so he started again leaning toward "social" element during the RSI...so if Italian Fascism has anything similar to Communism is because a share of its "human forces" was made up of deceived leftist revolutionaries...

But when I say that you like the Fascism of the worst kind I'm not definitely comparing the ideas you seem to support to Italian Fascism...noo...the ideas you seem to support haven't anything revolutionary or social in it...you're a pure and complete Fascist...just like USA are a pure and complete Fascist Government because are just a tool of brutal violence at the hand of Capital.

There's no attempt to hide that, but with ludicrous childish religious-Star Wars sounding lies...the USA are just a big gun tied to a dollar.

When I say you seem to "love Fascism" I mean that you seem to be a fascist of the new dire kind...an Americanist.

I've nothing against American people...I really think there are still true comrades in that capitalistic hell, notwithstanding the dire extermination and the witch-hunting campaigns run in the past against them and the ostracization that I guess commies get there...I hope American comrades will be one day free of their hell to live in a free America.

I've everything against Americanists...and since you sound to me a good "capitalist-lobby-boy"...a lover of "bringing freedom" stuffing a gun into someone else mouth and telling them what should they think...a "lover of freedom" which doesn't mind if people thinking differently gets tortured, threatened, beaten or silenced by the more or less compliant thugs of Capital...I shit upon such a "freedom" for that's the same kind of "freedom" offered by any dictatorship to those who kneel and bootlick!
Jashkar
could we have a mod here?
though i could be wrong, this looks like flaming of the worst kind...

adding to my previous statement:
stuffing a gun in someones mouth and asking their opinion...
didn't stalin do that?
Oh, Mao used that tactic in his cultural revolution, along with rape...
Castro probably still does it...
If your great leaders found it appropriate, why is it so bad you must use it as a metaphore for capitalist manipulation?
i'm off

capitalist media??
how can you see mass media as capitalist?
they are almost as liberal as our school systems.
_________________________________________________________________

extremist liberals are greedy for power; they make promises impossible to keep. unchecked big business is greedy for riches; it decimates anything between it and its goal.

I don't like "liberals"...here in Italy "liberal" is someone who believes in free market and other capitalistic night fables...so he's definitely the most pro-capitalistic kind of person one could run into.

If I understand well the meaning in USA "liberal" is something like the "plague politicians" we lately have in Italy as "left"...a bunch of bastards sold to Capital who keep feigning to weep for the poor and outcast and then sell their collective asses at the highest stake...if the comparation and the meaning is guessed right...well...they're pro-capitalist too, obviously!

I think I'm more like what you'd call a radical*...an anti-capitalist...a leftist...a commie.
Jashkar

* = Here "radical" is both the term for a rightwing libertarian americanist, a left-wing estremist and a right-wing estremist...

P.S.: Obviously correct me if my idea about these terms is wrong...

It sounds like a stable country with happy citizens... that is more than many western democracies can claim.

Every nation is far more complex than can be perceived by an outsider. The USA may seem a stable country - if one is to judge from a certain life style (home ownership, employment, etc.). But even this should be questioned. Employment in the USA does not mean a job with benefits necessarily. It might mean a part-time employment at MacDonald's without benefits at all. And employment statistics ignore those who have lost jobs, are no longer on unemployment compensation, and have yet to find a job. But look at the great division in politics between the so-called neo-conservatives and the so-called liberals. Or look at the numbers of people incarcerated (far higher than any other country in the world). Or look at the increasing chasm between the super wealthy and the so-called middle classes. Or, perhaps the plight of the American worker who has no recourse if a CEO decides to cut his/her benefits. I think, from talking to people in the USA, that they are not really very happy. Unfortunately, Mr Bush and his cronies will be in power until 2008. Who can say what new and innovative ways those people will devise to insult and endanger the rest of the world while lining their own pockets and those of their friends at the expense of the average American?

Americans are essentially no better and no worse than other peoples. The problem, I believe, is that many are terrorised by their own fears of 'the other' - thanks to 9/11 - and seek some kind of certainty and solace from the truly oldest professions: priests and politicians who are 'intelligent' enough to offer the masses the usual scapegoats.

None said they were better or worse, man...I never said that...they have the unluck of living in a place where Capital has so much control over the State and the major "tools" to work on collective minds that it's obvious that a lot of people cannot do anything but take the way that it's suggested them.

USA is a Country which has routinely persecuted, silenced and smeared anyone being even a bit "red"...and if my view of your school system is right...it tend to give a very specialized fully job-aimed education which leaves few "places" to find out one's inner peace...

I also think that it's not since 9/11 that Americans have been terrorized...they have always been terrorized...first with "Reds"...then with "Islamics"...terror is a tool of control for US Government and for Capitalists behind it...as is to "enslave" people with a job which they could lose today or tomorrow in a breath...if one has to work till consumption to survive, who has the time to bother about politics or to "riot"?

As for religion...that's just another way to flee a situation in which one cannot really change the reality of today...the world you live in seems to you a crap?
You pray the Lord for a better netherworld...

That's just human spirit, man...it's like a common reaction of tortured or raped people...often they try to "leave" a dire reality, leaving their bodies...that seems the same thing do those Americans which deep dive into religious fanatism...
Jashkar

adding to my previous statement:
stuffing a gun in someones mouth and asking their opinion...
didn't stalin do that?
Oh, Mao used that tactic in his cultural revolution, along with rape...

Have I ever said that I'd not have tried to shot down those you call "my great leaders"...yeah...I'm a commie, but I'd definitely tried to kill Stalin if I lived into USSR and may be I'd tried the same with Mao, about which (I admit it) I know less...the same applies for Hitler or Mussolini...

Castro probably still does it...

You said "probably"...and I haven't still heard of castrist gulags...but...yeah...none hides that Castro is a dictator.

If your great leaders found it appropriate, why is it so bad you must use it as a metaphore for capitalist manipulation?

Simple...because after all those leaders were dictators and I'm just showing you how your "democracy" is in fact a dictatorship just like the one you keep as "bugbears"...
Skarm

I can't be bothered to read those 7 pages. Especially since I'm worried about a school project.

The situation in Dubai sounds really great. The people are happy.

And I agree about the thing about how if you don't vote for your president, he won't make decisions based on how will it affect his running for the next term.

*cough*at least then you wouldn't get wars that will scare people in to voting for you for the second term*cough*

You may never have come right out and said it, but the way you talk about America makes it seem like the worst country since Nazis Germany. Do you really believe that?

Ugh. I just don't get why people like you have to get your panties in a bunch over us saying that things could be a lot better than they are.

The worst country since Nazi Germany? No. That title goes to North Korea. However, America won't be too far away if more bullshit things like the Patriot Act come into being.

Take your blind "patriotism" elsewhere. It's not making you look the least bit intelligent or in-touch with this discussion.

Simple...because after all those leaders were dictators and I'm just showing you how your "democracy" is in fact a dictatorship just like the one you keep as "bugbears"...
Skarm

Hate to break it to you but the United States isnt a democracy in the Athenian sense. We are a Representative Democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

And in no way is our Representative Democracy a Dictatorship. I will admit that the US government has persecuted communists but honestly who hasnt the US government persecuted at one point other then most white people. In the end though we the people still choose who we want to represent us in the gov. It may not be the smartest choice but hey not everyone is a friggen genius. I have freedom of speech, I can vote and run for office (eventually), and I have rights that are protected by the government. Hell I'm not told where to work or how many hours I have to put in. You can say that the US is a dictatorship all you want and I can say that I'm the popebut that doesnt make me right though.

Hate to break it to you but the United States isnt a democracy in the Athenian sense. We are a Representative Democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

And in no way is our Representative Democracy a Dictatorship. I will admit that the US government has persecuted communists but honestly who hasnt the US government persecuted at one point other then most white people. In the end though we the people still choose who we want to represent us in the gov. It may not be the smartest choice but hey not everyone is a friggen genius. I have freedom of speech, I can vote and run for office (eventually), and I have rights that are protected by the government. Hell I'm not told where to work or how many hours I have to put in. You can say that the US is a dictatorship all you want and I can say that I'm the popebut that doesnt make me right though.

That's a babble...in any known dictatorship none tells you it's a dictatorship, but if you disagree you end up ostracized, exiled and, if bothersome enough, jailed or killed...

You can run for office?
Yeah...if you are in good relationship with lobbies and do whatever they want...else you can't "run for office", you can just "jog to the office" if you want and it's close enough...

If it's normal for you that a democracy persecutes "at one point or the other" political and ethnical minorities...well...I don't think I stand any chance to break it to you what's a "fascist dictatorship"...yours is a fascist plutocratic dictatorship...

Yeah...you could see two different coloured puppets run on the scene by the same "mind"!

But, man, you say that Cuba is a "dictatorship"...but as far as I know people could vote for different parties there...obviously none goes too far against the regime, but even Cuba has elections...and as for political dissenters...well...if US persecutes at one point or the other a minority, political or ethnical...why Cuba is forbidden to? :D

As for "freedom of speech"...as I said before...even under Stalin & Berja you cold have freedom of speech as long as you didn't spoke aloud and did that in a lonely hut... :D

"Rights protected by government"?

But if I've read that people lately "disappears" in the US for someone ticked in the head the idea they could be "terrorists"...and may be they end up in that "place of freedom" called Guantanamo!!

It's not "voting" or speeches full of freedom that make a place a democracy...
...I think we are in the same situation as before the World War II...we had a a fascist with big stick and none dares to tell the things as they are...

I guess that one day we'll have to tell our children in shame why we didn't move a finger about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other horror camps America
keeps opening up, just like German had to do for generations about their "death camps"...

...but I definitely don't think most Americans will stop their ravening dreams till they end up beaten on the head with a bigger stick...just like happened to Germany!

Germans had just 20 years of brainwashing and they were relentless in their maniac dream...Americans have been under such a procedure for about a century and even more!!
Jashkar

That's a babble...in any known dictatorship none tells you it's a dictatorship, but if you disagree you end up ostracized, exiled and, if bothersome enough, jailed or killed...
Well thats funny because I dont see anyone being ostracized, exiled and jailed or killed. And quick question in a dictatorship how many people get taken out of office by referendum?

You can run for office?
Yeah...if you are in good relationship with lobbies and do whatever they want...else you can't "run for office", you can just "jog to the office" if you want and it's close enough...
Dude the quote "its not what you know but who you know" always holds true in any government wheter its a dictatorship or a democracy. I'm sure all of Stalin's communist appointies all got their jobs because of their impressive resumes and intellectual achievements :rolleyes:

If it's normal for you that a democracy persecutes "at one point or the other" political and ethnical minorities...well...I don't think I stand any chance to break it to you what's a "fascist dictatorship"...yours is a fascist plutocratic dictatorship...
Listen no one is perfect. The USA has had screw ups hell every nation has. But every country persecutes people. Under that definition every country at one point dictatorship.

Yeah...you could see two different coloured puppets run on the scene by the same "mind"!
Better then the one man in the communist state.

But, man, you say that Cuba is a "dictatorship"...but as far as I know people could vote for different parties there...obviously none goes too far against the regime, but even Cuba has elections...and as for political dissenters...well...if US persecutes at one point or the other a minority, political or ethnical...why Cuba is forbidden to? :D
Why is every nation forbidden too because its wrong to hurt people. Cuba will go after political dissentors, imprissoning them, tourturing them and killing them. Funny I dont see people being dragged off by the government because of how they vote.

As for "freedom of speech"...as I said before...even under Stalin & Berja you cold have freedom of speech as long as you didn't spoke aloud and did that in a lonely hut... :D
Yea thats nice but I can go out and in public express my view. I can get a protest and take to the streets in the US. How many people could do that in Stalin's Russia?

"Rights protected by government"?

But if I've read that people lately "disappears" in the US for someone ticked in the head the idea they could be "terrorists"...and may be they end up in that "place of freedom" called Guantanamo!!
Could I see the proof that these people are "disappearing" please.

It's not "voting" or speeches full of freedom that make a place a democracy...
...I think we are in the same situation as before the World War II...we had a a fascist with big stick and none dares to tell the things as they are...
Then please enlighten me on what exactly makes a place a democracy.

I guess that one day we'll have to tell our children in shame why we didn't move a finger about Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and other horror camps America
keeps opening up, just like German had to do for generations about their "death camps"...
Really so we are systematically taking all muslims and arabs and sending them to camps? This is news to me. O gosh I just thought that people captured overseas or who are suspected of terrorist activites are taken there and detained.

...but I definitely don't think most Americans will stop their ravening dreams till they end up beaten on the head with a bigger stick...just like happened to Germany!
Honestly its not that bad over here. You should visit. Great tourist attractions and all. Who knows you might like it.

Germans had just 20 years of brainwashing and they were relentless in their maniac dream...Americans have been under such a procedure for about a century and even more!!
Jashkar
I'd like to see the proof of this. Got any links or articles that would lead to this conclusion?

America is arrogant, with very good reason. It is the leading economic, military and social power on our planet, and is destined to remain so in the near future.

But then again, it is no different from France, Spain or Britain, who have all been superpowers in the past.

And some will no doubt be again ;;)

PlEaSe SiR fOrGiVe mY pOOr SPelLINg, sIr. i WaS BoRn iN cAnADa, SIr. a NAtiON rUn bY EVil ANd dIrTY lIBerALS WhO dO SPenD aLOt oN EdUCAtiON aND hEAlthCaRE BuT aLl tHE monEY gOes TOwaRDS laRGE salARies sO ThAT tHe POor ANd OVerWoRked DOctORS, NurSIES, aND teACheRS CaN REtirE eaRLy IN LifE sO ThAT ThEY cAN sPEnd mANy YEars IN peaCE AnD QUieT, siR.

sIGneD,
Jack the Ripper

CAtcH mE iF YoU cAN!

So it was you all along! I shall inform Kipper of The Yard. You're toast boy.

Marshal plan was part of the activities undergone to keep the "frontier lands" of Europe out of "Socialist Block"...together with massive anti-communist propaganda campaigns and obviously...Stand Behind...

Obviously none denies that individual private American citizens could have true altruistic motives to send aids to Europe after World War, just like it's entirely possible that individual private American citizens could volounteer to go in war to do something they thought "altruistic"...but definitely American Government didn't reason in terms of "altruism"...in first place no Government does that...in second place that would definitely not happen to a corporate-run State!
Jashkar

No, I made it quite clear. The Marshal plan was a government action to pump $billions into Europe to 1) Drag those smashed countries back on their feet and 2) To give America trading partners. It was indeed self-interested altruism. The Americans didn't have to do it. They could have kept their military bases across Europe and waited for those countries to slowly regain their strength.

Ah yes, the Marshall plan. Wonderful aid to Europe after WW2 except Britian. Why? Not because Britain hadn't suffered as much as the others (It had suffered lots more than France for example) but because Labour got in after WW2 and Labour are socialists.

Sorry, that's bollocks.

'If not for British initiative and support, however, the Marshall Plan might not have come to fruition. It remains a hallowed British myth that only Foreign Secretary Bevin grasped the importance of Marshall's speech, primed not by his officials but by a BBC broadcast. In fact, the Foreign Office expected a novel, large-scale U.S. aid proposal and knew that steps toward integration of the Western European economies were likely to be required. But Whitehall did not take up the Harvard speech itself as urgently as did Bevin. Indeed, the speech was vague -- deliberately so -- but it had implied that specifics would follow in public or should be elicited in private. Bevin, however, was a former union leader with a healthy skepticism for protocol, and he swung into action the next morning. "I never asked him for particulars," he told the House of Commons on June 19. "I said to myself at once -- and the Cabinet agreed immediately -- 'It is up to us to tell them what we want; it is up to us to produce the plan.'"

Bevin's rapid response had two important consequences. First, Britain took a leading role in the Marshall Plan right from the start. Marshall had left the boundaries of "Europe" undefined, and an earlier influential memo by George Kennan's Policy Planning Staff had implied that a plan for Britain's economic problems might be separate from, though linked with, the overall European program. Had the British taken the time to clarify Marshall's intent, the plan might have been shaped primarily by France. Second, Bevin's initiative strengthened the hand of those in Paris favoring a decisive French response. Although the French foreign minister, Georges Bidault, was ready to risk an open breach with Moscow, other policymakers, including Paul Ramadier and President Vincent Auriol, were more hesitant. While the Soviets continued to dangle the offer of a common punitive policy toward Germany, they feared that the acceptance of American aid might inflame the French left. Bevin's early involvement gave Bidault valuable support in the internal French struggle about whether to rely on the "Anglo-Saxons" who had failed them so conspicuously after the Great War.'

'The British were particularly outspoken in resisting Washington's conditions, having had both the wartime lend-lease program and a 1945 loan encumbered with American requirements to move from regional to multilateral trade. They saw the British Commonwealth and the sterling area as the basis for their recovery, certainly not continental Europe with which British commerce was much less significant. Nevertheless, on July 15, 1947, the day the CEEC got down to details, Britain honored the terms of the 1945 loan and made sterling freely convertible into dollars. The result was a financial hemorrhage, stanched only when convertibility was ended on August 20, and a diplomatic crisis that overshadowed the CEEC’s deliberations. Whitehall mismanagement was partly to blame, but the sterling crisis also strengthened Britain's aversion to what it deemed unrealistic and unfair American conditions for future aid.'

'In March Britain, France, and the Benelux states concluded the Brussels Pact, a military alliance that was also intended to further Western European economic and cultural integration along the intergovernmental lines that Bevin desired, rather than the grander "United States of Europe" that the out-of-office Winston Churchill had advocated in a speech in Zurich in September 1946. Talks then began in Washington to link the Brussels Pact with North America in a transatlantic alliance. Stalin's blockade of Berlin from the end of June gave the negotiations further impetus, and they resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty of April 1949. Finally, at meetings in London in the spring of 1948, the Americans and British forced the French to accept the first steps toward a West German government. Bidault warned his colleagues that, if they refused, the British would go ahead anyway and France would probably lose Marshall aid'

'The ECA Administrator Hoffman's campaign for a multilateral payments system, which would break Western Europe's postwar bilateral trade structure, met with even more widespread resistance. Britain, anxious to safeguard sterling's position as an international currency, naturally opposed the proposal, but Belgium, a creditor nation, also voiced strong doubts. What secured agreement on a European Payments Union in September 1950 was Hoffman's tactic of earmarking $600 million of the year's Marshall aid to back the scheme -- some 15 percent of the total funds committed that year. The payments union lasted eight years, until full currency convertibility was achieved, and it was one of the most significant institutional legacies of the Marshall Plan.'

'Western Europe's economic and security situation changed dramatically between 1948 and 1951 -- partly, but not only, as a result of the Marshall Plan. Early histories lauded the plan's economic effect in extravagant terms; it was Europe's "great leap forward" that had saved the continent "from imminent economic ruin" and had laid "the real foundations of later prosperity." Of late, a more nuanced tone has been adopted, particularly by European economic historians but even by some American participants. As these more balanced histories recognize, ERP aid did not begin to flow until well into 1948, by which time European recovery was under way, not least in Germany. In Charles Maier's felicitous metaphor, American aid served like "the lubricant in an engine -- not the fuel -- allowing a machine to run that would otherwise buckle and bind."'

And now to answer your comment directly:
'Roughly two-thirds of Marshall aid went to four countries: nearly one-quarter to Britain, one-fifth to France, and roughly one-tenth each to Italy and West Germany

If you have the stamina and the interest, you can read the full 'story' here:
The Marshall plan. (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19970501faessay3823-p30/david-reynolds/marshall-plan-commemorative-section-the-european-response-primacy-of-politics.html) .

Yeah...I have the "power" to say whatever I wish as long as I have a brain, fingers and a tongue...that's a problem for you, Mr. Fascist? :D

Not at all. :)

But you realize you've just disproven your previous claim that the West doesn't have Freedom of the Press? If you didn't have it then you wouldn't be able to write those words. Therefore, by the very act of writing that you have just proven that anyone in a Democracy who claims they don't have Freedom of the Press is either delusional or else a liar. :) :) :)

Have a nice day! ;)

No, I made it quite clear. The Marshal plan was a government action to pump $billions into Europe to 1) Drag those smashed countries back on their feet and 2) To give America trading partners. It was indeed self-interested altruism. The Americans didn't have to do it. They could have kept their military bases across Europe and waited for those countries to slowly regain their strength.

With almost a third of Italian population supplied with weapons and looking forward to a new "Red October"...and the "reds" on the door?

It'd not be a smart idea...if one wanted to keep control of the area like they wanted...

*And also they "kept" their fucked bases across Europe!!*

Also I'd not underestimate the power of US paranoia...they definitely paid a lot of cash to instill paranoia about commies in their population and they started believing the bullshit they said!! :D

So, while the Warsaw Pact was made to defend the Socialist Block from NATO invasion...which was perfectly rational since the US and other "nice" capitalistic friends sent soldiers to fight with "whites" during the civil war at the birth of USSR...well...seems that Americans had a useful amnesia about they being the butcherers who dropped the bomb to "show off" to USSR and the guys who tried to support the most reactionary forces of those time and kill Red Revolution in its cradle...or may be they were scared at the idea that someone could payback their shit!! :D
Jashkar

Not at all. :)

But you realize you've just disproven your previous claim that the West doesn't have Freedom of the Press? If you didn't have it then you wouldn't be able to write those words. Therefore, by the very act of writing that you have just proven that anyone in a Democracy who claims they don't have Freedom of the Press is either delusional or else a liar. :) :) :)

Have a nice day! ;)

Sorry...it's your statement the ludicrous delusional bullshit...
A forum on Internet isn't such a tool which could be called a "mass media"...
...and then, you really are so bright as not know that your fucked CIA is checking the Net?

Obviously they don't move if the "threat" isn't big enough...but the same applies to any other regime who checks Internet...but after a threashold is passed they move and the consequences are seen!

Not even a site would be a true "mass media", but...

Just try to open up a site supporting the Iraqi Resistance or other not-welcome partisan forces...you'll definitely see where you could stuff your "Freedom of Press" when you'll end up smeared and jailed with a bullshit excuse! :D
Jashkar

I'd agree to a point with you. The problem i see with this "Dubai model" is firstly, there appears to be no constitutional protection for individuals, and secondly, who is to say in these "town hall" style meetings, the sheiks act upon the opinions they hear? Admittedly, the second one is as much a failing of democracy as in this model, but the first is very important.

I've recently read an article on the United Arab Emirates in The Middle East Journal. If I understand correctly, the federal structure provides incentive for the rulers to act upon the wishes of the people. At first, the constitution was aimed at securing most power to the federal government, but the rulers of the individual emirates didn't want this as they feared their people giving all their loyalty to the federal government. There would appear to be incentive for the rulers of the individual emirates to keep the favor of the people, in order to secure their loyalty to the emirate. I would imagine that keeping the people's favor includes taking seriously their opinions on matters of government. Thus competition between the federal government and the individual emirates works in the people's favor.

Also, there is the traditional tribal culture upon which the individual emirates are based. If I understand correctly, the position held by a ruler is not simply an accident, but is based on tradition and the sense of legitimacy held by the tribe overall. Thus, in order to maintain legitimacy, the rulers must consider the people while making their decisions. I would imagine that loyalty of the ruler to the tribe also plays an important role.

Finally, according to the article I read, something like 80% of the population of the UAE are foreigners. The national "emiratis" is the minority in the UAE. A lack of enthusiasm about democracy does not indicate a preference for totalitarianism, so much as it indicates a simple recognition of the fact that democracy will mean the "emiratis" will lose control of their own country. And the disenfranchisement of the minority is certainly a valid problem with democracy. Something to keep in mind.