NationStates Jolt Archive

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?

It's because Muslims hate freedom. It says so in the Koran. Their religion translates into submission. They enjoy submitting to the authority and will of God and when set free they don't know what to do with themselves, so they start randomly exploding.

Well, I suppose setting one-party states on the way to being two-party states is spreading a little bit of freedom...

Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?

indeed. now if only america would actually get some, and not go around engaging in one of the surest ways to erode it instead.

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?
But by forcefully spreading it we are TAKING AWAY their freedom to choose

Sorry the iraqis and the Afgans are happy, thats why there killing each other is it. Noticed another 60 'Happy' people died in iraq to day. must have been that they where so happy that they let there guns of by accedent. And those roadside bombs, complete accident, right. they where laughing so hard they threw them away-right into the path of a American Tank?

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?
Can you spread it on some toast for me? Maybe with a little strawberry jam over it?

They enjoy submitting to the authority and will of God and when set free they don't know what to do with themselves, so they start randomly exploding.
It isn't that they enjoy it, they need it. You see, when an object is moved to an area of low pressure, they start to expand. Muslims, it has been discovered, emerged from the Mariannas Trench, where they had adapted to vastly greater atmospheric pressures than up here on land.
If you remove the pressure that Allah exerts on them, then Muslims start to rapidly expand into our thin atmosphere, sometimes creating a small fireball in the process.

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?

Freedom is not butter. It does not spread well.

But by forcefully spreading it we are TAKING AWAY their freedom to choose
um, we not taking their freedom, we are giving it to them. Not sure where you were going with that buddy.

Freedom costs a buck o' five ...

Freedom is not butter. It does not spread well.
You stole my spam, you spam stealer you! Grr....

America's Freedom Spread is too fatty and chunky anyhow, thus, why we should not be spreading it.

Freedom costs a buck o' five ...
DCD, your in a sig again.

Happy People!! http://www.christianiraq.com/photos/0509/voa/voa0908c.jpg Yay!

um, we not taking their freedom, we are giving it to them. Not sure where you were going with that buddy.
Exactly that ... when we FORCEFULLY change their governemnt and lifes against their will it is REMOVING freedom

This is not just "opening a door" for them this is Breaking the door open weather they like it or not.

If we just HELPED countries that are choosing freedom (with things like food at economic help) that would be a different story

You stole my spam, you spam stealer you! Grr....

America's Freedom Spread is too fatty and chunky anyhow, thus, why we should not be spreading it.

It's not as much that I stole your spam as I'm stalking you and hypnotising you at night so I can steal your opinions and thoughts.
:fluffle:

Happy People!! http://www.christianiraq.com/photos/0509/voa/voa0908c.jpg Yay!
um, they seem kinda sad for happy people. I think they were just sad because America left

We are not spreading freedom. We are spreading terrorism and tyranny.

Can you spread it on some toast for me? Maybe with a little strawberry jam over it?
Are you crazy, you cant eat freedom!?

um, they seem kinda sad for happy people. I think they were just sad because America left

Have I missed something big in the news? Last I heard America was still in Iraq.

Have I missed something big in the news? Last I heard America was still in Iraq.
Don't trample on his sweet innocence like that.

Yeah, first democratic elections in Ukraine since the last election result got overturned, and the communists are once again the single largest party. I think you will find 'freedom' (whose model?) is a luxury to be enjoyed only after the basic necessities of life are taken care of. :rolleyes:

Are you crazy, you cant eat freedom!?

ZOMG, epiphany! Americans ate all their freedom! This explains why people bitch both about obesity and lack of freedom in America!

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?

You are a troll puppet. You have to be. No-one could be that self-righteously ignorant.

I don't really want to waste time over this, so here's a brief answer.

1. The US has a sinister record of arming, funding and supporting terrorists, backing dictatorships and overthrowing democratically elected governments. None of which means they haven't done good things too, but if you're going to ignore facts and assert the kind of ultra-simplistic, black-and-white morality one would expect of a ten-year-old, don't expect to be taken seriously.

2. Your parroting absurd Bushist rhetoric about "hating freedom" only convinces me that you're a puppet. If you're not, you really need to develop a mind of your own and a little critical thinking. Actually, even just a little thinking would be nice.

3. Iraqis whose relatives have been slaughtered in Coalition bombardments are hardly happy. Nor are those who can no longer step out of their home without fearing for their lives. I'd love to see how "happy" you'd be in similar circumstances.

4. Your grossly narrow-minded cultural ignorance and utter lack of understanding of foreign peoples, their cultures and differing outlooks on the world, makes me want to throw my arms up in despair. I'm not even going to try. It would take years to get your mind developed enough to become aware of a few basic realities, and you wouldn't want it anyway. Facts, truth, the complexity of the real world would shatter the comforting simplicity you've locked yourself into. You've painted a simple world around yourself which holds no similarity with the real world, but enables you to cling to a few basic falsehoods and avoid having to actually think about anything.

Have I missed something big in the news? Last I heard America was still in Iraq.
Yeah, but maybe they left that town or something.

Don't trample on his sweet innocence like that.

Meh, gotta break in the boots some day

Meh, gotta break in the boots some day
Well, you could be just a little more sensitive. He's a growing boy. And why do I always have to do the dishes?? Sometimes, I feel you just don't care anymore.

Yeah, but maybe they left that town or something.
Oh right, then again, maybe they where sad because people where shooting at them.

Freedom is too bitter and expensive for my tastes. It's like pure chocolate - you think it's going to be great, but then it makes you throw up.

Well, you could be just a little more sensitive. He's a growing boy. And why do I always have to do the dishes?? Sometimes, I feel you just don't care anymore.

He's not growing, not since I tied that brick to his head.

You have to do the dishes because of what you did to the cat, how many times do I have to tell you?!

Oh right, then again, maybe they where sad because people where shooting at them.

I suppose it is possible(although incalculably improbable) that they are, as the caption says, mourning.

He's not growing, not since I tied that brick to his head.

You have to do the dishes because of what you did to the cat, how many times do I have to tell you?!
Right. Right. With the pullies and petroleum jelly. You have to admit, it was the most interesting weather experiment you've ever heard of.

Oh right, then again, maybe they where sad because people where shooting at them.
like terrorists right? Cause if America left the town its possible the terrorists would start shooting at them.

like terrorists right? Cause if America left the town its possible the terrorists would start shooting at them.
Maybe they didn't know how to say, "I'm not a terrorist" in proper english.

Maybe they didn't know how to say, "I'm not a terrorist" in proper english.

How would it be in improper english I wonder?

I'm no good at an Iraqi or Afghani accent so... somebody needs to help me out here.

Right. Right. With the pullies and petroleum jelly. You have to admit, it was the most interesting weather experiment you've ever heard of.

No, not that cat. That was a valuable scientific discovery. I mean the neighbours cat. Remember, with the bicycle pump and the hockey puck?

like terrorists right? Cause if America left the town its possible the terrorists would start shooting at them.
or maybe it was the Americans shooting at them. or maybe there hosue had been raided....Oh of course, Americans don't shoot at innocent people, they ahve this lazer headgear that allows them to identify freind from foe. No American has ever shot an innoccent-everyone that a American has killed in Iraq has been a terroist.

Hell theres been a lot of terroists in Iraq then!

You are a troll puppet. You have to be. No-one could be that self-righteously ignorant.

I don't really want to waste time over this, so here's a brief answer.

1. The US has a sinister record of arming, funding and supporting terrorists, backing dictatorships and overthrowing democratically elected governments. None of which means they haven't done good things too, but if you're going to ignore facts and assert the kind of ultra-simplistic, black-and-white morality one would expect of a ten-year-old, don't expect to be taken seriously.

2. Your parroting absurd Bushist rhetoric about "hating freedom" only convinces me that you're a puppet. If you're not, you really need to develop a mind of your own and a little critical thinking. Actually, even just a little thinking would be nice.

3. Iraqis whose relatives have been slaughtered in Coalition bombardments are hardly happy. Nor are those who can no longer step out of their home without fearing for their lives. I'd love to see how "happy" you'd be in similar circumstances.

4. Your grossly narrow-minded cultural ignorance and utter lack of understanding of foreign peoples, their cultures and differing outlooks on the world, makes me want to throw my arms up in despair. I'm not even going to try. It would take years to get your mind developed enough to become aware of a few basic realities, and you wouldn't want it anyway. Facts, truth, the complexity of the real world would shatter the comforting simplicity you've locked yourself into. You've painted a simple world around yourself which holds no similarity with the real world, but enables you to cling to a few basic falsehoods and avoid having to actually think about anything.
You use a lot of big words, but this is what I got from it, correct if Im wrong; you dont like America's policies and you don't like us giving freedom to people which is fine. But backing dictatorships? When as the US done that, except for the times when it was necessary for freedom? btw, you dont need to flame me just because you disargee, this is America afterall

like terrorists right? Cause if America left the town its possible the terrorists would start shooting at them.

If America left town the terrorists would celebrate. Then after a night of partying and firing AKs into the air they'd stop and realise the Americans stopped at the next town. Then they'd go chase them.

No, not that cat. That was a valuable scientific discovery. I mean the neighbours cat. Remember, with the bicycle pump and the hockey puck?
You knew about that one?

Lets, uh... lets not talk about this in public.

Hell theres been a lot of terroists in Iraq then!
Yep, thats why we went in there. btw, when did they get those laser things? thats so awesome.

You use a lot of big words, but this is what I got from it, correct if Im wrong; you dont like America's policies and you don't like us giving freedom to people which is fine. But backing dictatorships? When as the US done that, except for the times when it was necessary for freedom? btw, you dont need to flame me just because you disargee, this is America afterall
My god. This is priceless.

You use a lot of big words, but this is what I got from it, correct if Im wrong; you dont like America's policies and you don't like us giving freedom to people which is fine. But backing dictatorships? When as the US done that, except for the times when it was necessary for freedom? btw, you dont need to flame me just because you disargee, this is America afterall
Yep, Diems goverment was nesscary for Freedom, killing all those Buddest freed tyhem all right.*








*From American oppresion

You use a lot of big words, but this is what I got from it, correct if Im wrong; you dont like America's policies and you don't like us giving freedom to people which is fine. But backing dictatorships? When as the US done that, except for the times when it was necessary for freedom? btw, you dont need to flame me just because you disargee, this is America afterall

Em, look at the address bar. This, my friend, is England.
......forums.jolt.co.uk/..........

like terrorists right? Cause if America left the town its possible the terrorists would start shooting at them.

Ah, you're not even a convincing puppet. You're just too obvious.

Ah, you're not even a convincing puppet. You're just too obvious.
It was clever at first. Now it just plain odvious.

My god. This is priceless.

It is, isn't it? "Backing dictatorships for the sake of freedom". Hours of entertainment here in General. ;)

Yep, Diems goverment was nesscary for Freedom, killing all those Buddest freed tyhem all right.*








*From American oppresion

Actually killing the buddhists may have freed them from the wheel of reincarnation(or whatever the correct term is), but that's in geosynchronous orbit above the point.

It is, isn't it? "Backing dictatorships for the sake of freedom". Hours of entertainment here in General. ;)
Freedom is a cruel Mistress. She plays with our minds... and our hearts.

Em, look at the address bar. This, my friend, is England.
......forums.jolt.co.uk/..........

I don't suppose there is some chart somewhere that lists what countries people on NS are from? I would really like to know the percentage of non-Americans here. I know it must be at least equal.

Ah, you're not even a convincing puppet. You're just too obvious.
Im serious, when America leaves it just gets retaken by terrorists, just look at Falljuah, and terrorists have killed far more Iraqis

I don't suppose there is some chart somewhere that lists what countries people on NS are from? I would really like to know the percentage of non-Americans here. I know it must be at least equal.
last time I checked its 59% American

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?

Because walking into a country, and saying, "This is how it's going to be, and if you don't like it, we can shoot you. Why? Because our guns are bigger than yours," is not freedom, nor is it liberation.

last time I checked its 59% American

Where did you check from?

Im serious, when America leaves it just gets retaken by terrorists, just look at Falljuah, and terrorists have killed far more Iraqis
I remember reading something way back when that there were no insurgents in Fallujah until we decided to invade it. Then the insurgents came from other parts of the country and the people who lived there fought back against the Americans as well. Because the people who lived there didn't have many places to live in anymore. So, we basically staged a ground for insurgents to come to and then turned a bunch of regular citizens into insurgents in the process.

Where did you check from?
a poll somewhere

I think the answer you seek can be found in the hottest song ever sung by the great David Hasselhoff:

One morning in June
some twenty years ago
I was born a rich man's son
I had everything that money could buy,
but freedom I had none

I've been looking for freedom
I've been looking so long
I've been looking for freedom
Still the search goes on
I've been looking for freedom
since I left my home town
I've been looking for freedom
Still it can't be found

:cool:

a poll somewhere
:rolleyes: 93% of all statistics on NS are made up on the spot.
Including that one.

But by forcefully spreading it we are TAKING AWAY their freedom to choose
Flawed argument.

1. If they live in a dictatorship, they don't get the freedom to choose anyway.

2. If they live in a democracy they can choose to elect the same guy over and over again if they wish.

I'm sure this may be a tad off subject, but since the topic is liberation, why is the High and Mighty US of A off rescuing house cats in trees, and not the small children in front of 18 wheelers?

Alright, bad analogy. Though, why does the US "liberate" The Middle East? Of all places that need liberation, why was Iraq number one on the list? Oil? A family vendetta? You tell me. If the US needs to be liberating anyone, it's African countires, not Iran, or Iraq.

Exactly that ... when we FORCEFULLY change their governemnt and lifes against their will it is REMOVING freedom

How do you know that a dictatorship is in compliance with the will of the people? You don't have the freedom to choose your government in a dictatorship, but you do have it in a democracy.

But backing dictatorships? When as the US done that, except for the times when it was necessary for freedom?
How is backing a dictatorship, supporting freedom?

I'm sure this may be a tad off subject, but since the topic is liberation, why is the High and Mighty US of A off rescuing house cats in trees, and not the small children in front of 18 wheelers?

Alright, bad analogy. Though, why does the US "liberate" The Middle East? Of all places that need liberation, why was Iraq number one on the list? Oil? A family vendetta? You tell me. If the US needs to be liberating anyone, it's African countires, not Iran, or Iraq.
last time I checked something like 70% of African countries are already democracies.

You don't have the freedom to choose your government in a dictatorship, but you do have it in a democracy.

No, you have the "freedom" to choose your politicians, not your government.

Though, why does the US "liberate" The Middle East? Of all places that need liberation, why was Iraq number one on the list? Oil? A family vendetta? You tell me. If the US needs to be liberating anyone, it's African countires, not Iran, or Iraq.

What does the Sudan have to give the US? I really hope there aren't very many people who think the United States ever gives any real help out of pure altruism.

How is backing a dictatorship, supporting freedom?
simple, stable governments help keep America safe, and free:)

last time I checked something like 70% of African countries are already democracies.
Uh huh. And what about the other 30% who's everyday lives consist of Genocide? I guess that since the majority is already democracy, the other 30% doesn't matter. That is the democratic way, after all.:rolleyes:

No, you have the "freedom" to choose your politicians, not your government.

:rolleyes: Any idiot can run for election and be a politician. The ones that get chosen(i.e. elected) are the government.

No, you have the "freedom" to choose your politicians, not your government.
since the politicans make up the government...one may infer that they are choosing their government.

It's not as much that I stole your spam as I'm stalking you and hypnotising you at night so I can steal your opinions and thoughts.
Which explains my strange, spread filled, erotic dreams that I have when I sleep with a phsycologist whose face I've never seen.
:fluffle: <--- Just because this thread won't ever have enough of these.

It's because Muslims hate freedom. It says so in the Koran. Their religion translates into submission. They enjoy submitting to the authority and will of God and when set free they don't know what to do with themselves, so they start randomly exploding.

A scholar, I take it?

Uh huh. And what about the other 30% who's everyday lives consist of Genocide? I guess that since the majority is already democracy, the other 30% doesn't matter. That is the democratic way, after all.:rolleyes:
you dont honestly believe that 30% of Africa lives in genocide. the closest they can get it is Sudan and thats not a genocide yet. btw genocides can happen in democracies, e.i. Nazi Germany.

Which explains my strange, spread filled, erotic dreams that I have when I sleep with a phsycologist whose face I've never seen.
:fluffle: <--- Just because this thread won't ever have enough of these.

No thread will ever have enough :fluffle:s now that jolt switched them for :upyours: . Stupid jolt.

since the politicans make up the government...one may infer that they are choosing their government.
At the end of the day, we will still be living in a capitalist democracy. I don't think "communist dictatorship" has ever been the ballot.

At the end of the day, we will still be living in a capitalist democracy. I don't think "communist dictatorship" has ever been the ballot.

Why don't you run?

At the end of the day, we will still be living in a capitalist democracy. I don't think "communist dictatorship" has ever been the ballot.
thats because we dont elect one, look at Iraq, they have elected a shiite pseudo-theocarcy. Thats what they want, not our capitalist democracy.

[QUOTE=The UN abassadorship]you dont honestly believe that 30% of Africa lives in genocide. [\QUOTE]
It's a generalization. I don't have an Associated Press statistic sheet next to me at the moment.

I don't suppose there is some chart somewhere that lists what countries people on NS are from? I would really like to know the percentage of non-Americans here. I know it must be at least equal.

there's an incomplete and outdated map
http://www.frappr.com/nsgeneral

Why don't you run?
I just might, though, I think 50% of the US public might find my ideals too logical to fit their gun-nut, money loving preferences.

DCD, your in a sig again.
I wonder who holds the record for being in the most people's sigs simultaneously?

Oh right, then again, maybe they where sad because people where shooting at them.
Nonsense! Being shot at is a great adrenalin rush. It makes one feel alive until the loss of blood makes one feel dead.

Nonsense! Being shot at is a great adrenalin rush. It makes one feel alive until the loss of blood makes one feel dead.
Hahaha!

Maybe they didn't know how to say, "I'm not a terrorist" in proper english.
Well one would think they'd put some effort into learning that phrase when they found out the US was going to invade. Clearly it's their own fault. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

there's an incomplete and outdated map
http://www.frappr.com/nsgeneral

Incomplete and outdated! :eek:

I just might, though, I think 50% of the US public might find my ideals too logical to fit their gun-nut, money loving preferences.
whats logical about not allowing the public to protect themselves in their home and hating money?

To the original poster:

Until you fully understand everything about everyone in the world, please do not post such stupid, ignorant piles of shit. For one many many Muslims are not terrorists, in the same way that a great many Americans are not as thick as the rest of the world seems to think.
As for the freedom comment, can they not be free to do things the way they want? Why are you trying to force YOUR version of freedom on someone else. What if I feel it's my freedom to shoot ever single American Republican? Is that the RIGHT freedom, or am I a crazed left wing looney?
I have served in the military, and seen this so called "freedom" that the Americans especially seem to love bringing to places. ANd you know what, it only ever seems to lead to more deaths; civilian and military. Forget sides, forget political systems, forget boundaries and religions. They are all people, and they die ever single time someone meddles. I am not saying we should leave them to rot, I am saying that nobody should force anything upon them.

I just might, though, I think 50% of the US public might find my ideals too logical to fit their gun-nut, money loving preferences.

Don't let UN make you think all americans are like that.

If americans want freedom we should start at home, not every government can read my every keystroke.

And don't tell me that the iraqis and afghanis are happier now, if I was there I'd only be happy about not being able to go to school thanks to the likely event of eing maimed on my way there. After that I'd notice the fact that I couldn't go anywhere at all.

Em, look at the address bar. This, my friend, is England.
......forums.jolt.co.uk/..........
England is a subsidiary of America corporation.

Why don't you run?
Is it because Freedom™ is on the march?

Mmmm... Tasty Freedom™ :fluffle:

What does the Sudan have to give the US? I really hope there aren't very many people who think the United States ever gives any real help out of pure altruism.
Sudan has oil and is in a good strategic location near the middle east. Hey, let's take over Sudan next.

A scholar, I take it?
I prefer the term "Taliban". It means the same thing, but sounds more ominous.

England is a subsidiary of America corporation.

I think not. Remember, you Americans owe an awful lot to the English. Language, place names, certain religions, even your Constitution (based on Magna Carta, and indirectly the Charter of Henry I).

I think not. Remember, you Americans owe an awful lot to the English. Language, place names, certain religions, even your Constitution (based on Magna Carta, and indirectly the Charter of Henry I).
No, it's true. Our CEO, Ronald Regan initiated a hostile takeover while your CEO at the time, Margaret Thatcher, was busy with a project in Argentina that involved securing their market share in the Falkland Islands.

No, it's true. Our CEO, Ronald Regan initiated a hostile takeover while your CEO at the time, Margaret Thatcher, was busy with a project in Argentina that involved securing their market share in the Falkland Islands.

But it was later shown to be in breach of anti-trust laws. And Ma'am Thatcher was simply retaking a branch of the compnay that had been subject to a hostile takeover.

No, it's true. Our CEO, Ronald Regan initiated a hostile takeover while your CEO at the time, Margaret Thatcher, was busy with a project in Argentina that involved securing their market share in the Falkland Islands.
It is very true. The markets reacted positively at first, helping contribute to a period of economic boom and thus the corporation was prepared to stick with Maggie. Eventually, though, Thatcher got fed up when Ronnie told her she was going to have to start wearing a badge that said "Hi! I Maggie, how may I help you?" with various stars on it to show how far up the ladder she'd progressed. She was therefore replaced with John Major, a former circus clown who was lying around spare after the break up of the Soviet Union.

It is very true. The markets reacted positively at first, helping contribute to a period of economic boom and thus the corporation was prepared to stick with Maggie. Eventually, though, Thatcher got fed up when Ronnie told her she was going to have to start wearing a badge that said "Hi! I Maggie, how may I help you?" with various stars on it to show how far up the ladder she'd progressed. She was therefore replaced with John Major, a former circus clown who was lying around spare after the break up of the Soviet Union.

Hang on! Major was a good chap, I met him at a party once. And Mr Ragan was suffering from a medical condition known technically as "being totally doo-lally".

I think not. Remember, you Americans owe an awful lot to the English. Language, place names, certain religions, even your Constitution (based on Magna Carta, and indirectly the Charter of Henry I).


Hah! You make a good joke. You're almost acting as if you don't know that that's all Communist Propoganda! Everyone knows that America originally settled Britain in 1993 before which it was a desolate wasteland consisting only of hedgerows.

Hang on! Major was a good chap, I met him at a party once. And Mr Ragan was suffering from a medical condition known technically as "being totally doo-lally".
It must have been the party of the century with Mr Major there. :p

Hah! You make a good joke. You're almost acting as if you don't know that that's all Communist Propoganda! Everyone knows that America originally settled Britain in 1993 before which it was a desolate wasteland consisting only of hedgerows.

Nurse! He's out of bed again!

It must have been the party of the century with Mr Major there. :p
Not really. Tony Benn was far more interesting, but Mr Major did have some rather amusing stories.

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?

Because, numbskull, freedom is not the same everywhere. Your particular brand of freedomtm may not be the same as that which everyone else wants. This is what we call diversity

Because, numbskull, freedom is not the same everywhere. Your particular brand of freedomtm may not be the same as that which everyone else wants. This is what we call diversity
Thank you! At last someone with a brain.

No, you have the "freedom" to choose your politicians, not your government.
The government is comprised of politicians. Politicians set the laws that determine the structure of the government.

simple, stable governments help keep America safe, and free:)
So is this about freedom for Americans or freedom for the inhabitants of the nations that are "given freedom"? Be consistent please.

you dont honestly believe that 30% of Africa lives in genocide. the closest they can get it is Sudan and thats not a genocide yet. btw genocides can happen in democracies, e.i. Nazi Germany.
You really are an idiot. Darfut is a genocide, and Nazi Germany was a dictatorship.

At the end of the day, we will still be living in a capitalist democracy. I don't think "communist dictatorship" has ever been the ballot.
Yet, if a communist party wants to run and people want to vote for them, they can do so.

Why do you hate Americans so much UN Ambassadorship?

The government is comprised of politicians. Politicians set the laws that determine the structure of the government.

Actually the government is comprised of civil servents

Because, numbskull, freedom is not the same everywhere. Your particular brand of freedomtm may not be the same as that which everyone else wants. This is what we call diversity
In democracy, people can vote for the kind of freedom they want, including theocracy, if that's their idea of freedom.

The right to self-determination is a universally recognised human right. Dictatorships take it away.

Actually the government is comprised of civil servents
Bring me my tea, Rumsfeld!

Actually the government is comprised of civil servents
Who do you think hires the civil servants? Who creates the jobs that civil servants do?

So is this about freedom for Americans or freedom for the inhabitants of the nations that are "given freedom"? Be consistent please.
Places where we sponser dictatorships, its for our freedom, when we liberate, its for theirs.

You really are an idiot. Darfut is a genocide, and Nazi Germany was a dictatorship.
No, Darfur has elements of genocide, if it was a genocide the UN would have to act. Was Hilter elected in a democractic way or not? thank you

Actually the government is comprised of civil servents
Then why do they get all angry and rude when I demand that they clean my apartment?

Because, numbskull, freedom is not the same everywhere. Your particular brand of freedomtm may not be the same as that which everyone else wants. This is what we call diversity
thanks for the flame, really thanks. Anyway, if you had decided to read anything I wrote instead of attacking me, you would have found that I said they have choose their brand of freedom, a shiite pseudo-theocracy.

Then why do they get all angry and rude when I demand that they clean my apartment?
good point--politicians are supposed to be our slaves

In democracy, people can vote for the kind of freedom they want, including theocracy, if that's their idea of freedom.

The right to self-determination is a universally recognised human right. Dictatorships take it away.

Shall I tell you an interesting thing? Did you know that one of the most politically stable country's in the world is North Koria? It's quite true, check with the UN. They have Kim Jong, who was elected President FOREVER. Ergo a very stable political figure. After he died his son took over and technically he is just running it for his father.

It's it funny how these things work..... Any comments Mr Bush?

The UN abassadorship is probably just one of those people who thinks that the Americans realy did capture the German Enigma machine just because the film 'U-571' said so. XD

They have Kim Jong, who was elected President FOREVER. Ergo a very stable political figure. After he died his son took over and technically he is just running it for his father.


Erm... nope. Well, you're correct, except for the name. For the sheer joy of nitpicking: The father was Kim Il-Sung. He died in 1994, and was made Eternal President. Which makes the DPRK the only country in the world with a dead man as head of state. He was succeeded by his son Kim Jong-Il, who, nonetheless, as you said, is still technically subordinate to his dead father.

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?
I don't know why people aren't happy that the US is liberating them from their oppressive governments installed by the US.

I don't know why people aren't happy that the US is liberating them from their oppressive governments installed by the US.
Yeah, no shit. If Sears replaces a defective Kenmore brand washing machine that they delivered to your house you would be happy and grateful, but the US removes Saddam and all of a sudden the whole country goes apeshit.

No, Darfur has elements of genocide, if it was a genocide the UN would have to act. Was Hilter elected in a democractic way or not? thank you
Ya, no dictators are ever elected. The first step of any dictatorship is to get elected. And darfur was a genocide

I don't know why people aren't happy that the US is liberating them from their oppressive governments installed by the US.

^^^agreed

Yeah, no shit. If Sears replaces a defective Kenmore brand washing machine that they delivered to your house you would be happy and grateful, but the US removes Saddam and all of a sudden the whole country goes apeshit.


I dunno... if Sears killed half my family and burned my house down while replacing that machine, then stuck around to slaughter any other repairmen who happened to show up, I think I might get a little upset.

Especially if they wanted me to be grateful about it.

I dunno... if Sears killed half my family and burned my house down while replacing that machine, then stuck around to slaughter any other repairmen who happened to show up, I think I might get a little upset.

Especially if they wanted me to be grateful about it.
Boy, talk about the customer from hell. Sales associates must hate it when you come in with all of your demands and conditions.

Boy, talk about the customer from hell. Sales associates must hate it when you come in with all of your demands and conditions.

This is why I stay away from extended warrantees. They always end in tears.

Places where we sponser dictatorships, its for our freedom, when we liberate, its for theirs.


No, Darfur has elements of genocide, if it was a genocide the UN would have to act. Was Hilter elected in a democractic way or not? thank you

1st point:

Yes sponsoring dictatorships really helps your freedom. :rolleyes:

2nd point:

The UN is busy, and the UN has no force of it's own.

And dictatorship is defined as, "A government led by a dictator or a despot. Dictatorships are more often than not totalitarian regimes, but there is also a benevolent dictatorship, which is by consent of the people."

Hitler fell under absolute power.

Democracy is defined as, "rule by the people". Nai Germany was not ruled by the people. It was ruled by Hitler.

It doesn't matter if he was elected. He is a dictator.

I hate to call people names in a discussion, and generalize as greatly as I am about to do, but if one honestly, without a doubt believes that the US is in Iraq to liberate it's people, you are truly ignorant.

The definition of Empire: A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.

What was the claim of the US upon infiltration of Iraq? "We will liberate Iraq and bring them Democracy!"
Which country was so great because they were free simply because they are democratic? Though it may be a stretch, and I will probably be called crazy, I think the US is trying to build an empire for itself! Ingenious! I can see it now: Welcome Citizens to the United Countries of the American Empire!!!

Hm... a tad over the top.

Who do you think hires the civil servants? Who creates the jobs that civil servants do?

Other civil servents. Seriously watch Yes Minister.

In democracy, people can vote for the kind of freedom they want, including theocracy, if that's their idea of freedom.

The right to self-determination is a universally recognised human right. Dictatorships take it away.

What did I say that made you doubt that was the case. I agree people always want freedom. They just dont always want American style freedom.

Ecept they hate it because they seem to like killing eacother. Just look at that Christian in Afgahnastan.

Ecept they hate it because they seem to like killing eacother. Just look at that Christian in Afgahnastan.
People all over the place seem to like killing eachother ... including us killing them

Does that mean we hate freedom?

People all over the place seem to like killing eachother ... including us killing them

Does that mean we hate freedom?

I think he means that they are trying to kill those who wish to exercise their freeodm of religion

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?
You're devaluing what is a very worthwhile concept.

last time I checked something like 70% of African countries are already democracies.

Alright. I've been very good for a long time now and have been mostly ignoring the UN abassadorship when he posts - either that or laughing at the sheer inanity of it all.

However, I'll wager that I've spent considerably more time in sub-saharan Africa than this contemptible little troll, and I'm not going to let this one go uncontested. So here, for your education, is a complete list of governmental systems in African nations.

ALGERIA: Flawed democracy. Holds elections, but the country is still under a state of emergency originally called in the wake of the annullment of the 1992 election actually won by Islamists. Strict controls remain in place on the parties allowed to compete, and the media is state-controlled.

ANGOLA: Transitional. After 30 years of civil war, the first multi-party elections since independence were held in 1992. However, Savimbi's refusal to accept the results led to several more years of civil war before his death in 2002. Multi-party elections are scheduled for this year. These could lead to Angola becoming a true multi-party democracy. Maybe.

BENIN: Democracy. Has managed the transition well, with former dictator Kerekou accepting both an election defeat in 1991 and constitutional term limits following his return to power in '96. Press freedoms are considered to be some of the best in West Africa.

BOTSWANA: Democracy. The only sub-Saharan African country to be a democracy since independence, although the Botswana Democratic Party has won every election since independence in '66. Press freedoms are generally good, though there are occasional accusations of favouritism towards the BDP.

BURKINA FASO: Flawed democracy. Ostensibly has a multi-party system. However, President Compaore - who was elected unopposed in '91 following his '87 coup - claims to have won 80% of the vote in the 2005 elections. Over 11 other candidates. And that always looks suspicious. While some governmental criticism is allowed, the Ministry of Communication and Culture regulates the media.

BURUNDI: Transitional. The first multi-party elections since the start of the latest Hutu-Tutsi civil war were held in 2005. These were won by former Hutu rebel leader Pierre Nkurunziza. The situation, however, remains fragile, and Burundi is in need of significant support if the peace deal and democracy are to last.

CAMEROON: Flawed democracy. Paul Biya won supposedly multi-party elections in 1992, 1997, and 2004. However, the main opposition parties boycotted the '92 and '97 elections, and Biya claimed to win 70% of the vote in a 2004 election widely characterised as 'lacking credibility'. The media are mostly state-controlled and subject to tight restrictions where they aren't.

CAPE VERDE: Democracy. And has been since 1990. Has managed the transition to a full multi-party system well.

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: Transitional. Following his 2003 military coup against the unpopular (but democratically elected) President Patasse, Francois Bozize won 64% of the vote in the second round of elections held last year. Bozize had previously attempted to take power through military coups in 1983 and 1991. He also lost the 1993 election to Patasse. Whether the 2005 election will lead to a genuine democracy in a question brutalised by decades of sometimes bizarre dictatorship remains an open question. Especially given who won the election.

CHAD: Flawed democracy/transitional. The first multi-party presidential elections were held in 1996 and won by Idriss Deby, who took power in a military coup in 1991. However, Deby has since held a widely-criticised referendum removing presidential term limits. The implications of this for Chadian democracy are uncertain. Deby will stand for a third term this year. Radio is state-controlled, although a limited free press operates in the capital.

COMOROS: Transitional/occasional anarchy. The situation in the Comoros is in a state of flux following the 1997 unilateral declarations of independence by two of the three islands in the nation (the fourth island, Mayotte, remains a French territory). A 2002 deal sees the presidency rotate between the three islands, though whether Azali Assoumani - who won post-peace deal elections in 2002 after his 1999 military coup - will in fact step down next month will prove to be an interesting situation.

CONGO (Republic of): Transitional. After a nasty two year civil war in the late 90s, Denis Sassou-Nguesso (who had been president between 1979 and 1992 before losing the nation's first multi-party elections in that year) won elections in 2002 following his '97 return to power during the war. However, his two closest rivals were excluded from the vote through manipulation of the residency laws, and the third main opposition candidate withdrew claiming irregularities. Media reflect government views.

DR CONGO: Transitional. Following one of the nastiest international wars in African history, which is believed to have claimed up to 3 million lives, an interim government has been formed, and delayed elections - the first since 1960 - are scheduled for this year. However the central government's hold on large sections of the country is at best minimal, and the infrastructure out side Kinshasa and Kisangani is virtually non-existent.

DJIBOUTI: Flawed democracy/possible dictatorship. The situation in Djibouti is unclear. While a peace treaty with the last main rebel faction was signed in 2000, and Ismael Omar Guelleh won an election in 2005, the opposition didn't field a candidate, and IOG is only the country's second president. He succeeded his uncle - Djibouti's only other president - in 1999.

EGYPT: Flawed democracy. The ruling party generously permitted candidates to run against Hosni Mubarak for the first time in 2005. Previously Egyptian voters were merely asked to vote 'yes' or 'no' on the one candidate. However, the only opposition group with broad public support - the Muslim Brotherhood - was banned from participating. The local media are remarkably vibrant under the circumstances, though hardly free by Western standards.

EQUATORIAL GUINEA: Dictatorship. President Nguema overthrew and executed his uncle in 1979. He won the most recent 'elections' with 97% of the vote. The opposition parties withdrew from the election citing widespread fraud and irregularities. The only private radio station is owned and run by Nguema's son.

ERITREA: Dictatorship. After the initial euphoria in winning independence from Ethiopia in 1993, it soon transpired that the ruling People's Front for Democracy had no intention of handing over power. Elections scheduled for 1997 never materialised, and Eritrea remains the only African country with no privately-owned media of any kind. Restrictions on press freedom are some of the most savage in Africa.

ETHIOPIA: Democracy. Contentious one this, but I'll give Prime Minister Zenawi the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Despite the violence (deaths and arrests) in the wake of the hotly contested 2005 election, the ruling party did in fact lose ground in the election. And while media freedoms are imperfect, Zenawi's government has introduced dramatic changes in deregulation since taking office. The real test will be the next election.

GABON: Flawed democracy. President Omar Bongo has been in power since 1967, making him Africa's longest-serving ruler. His nation was a one-party state between 1967 and 1991. He changed the constitition in 2003 to allow himself to run as many times as he wants. He won 80% of the vote in a 2005 election from which opposition candidates withdrew, alleging fraud. But for all that, international observers agreed the 2005 election was largely free and fair, so on that basis Bongo's government just sneaks into 'flawed democracy' instead of 'dictatorship'.

THE GAMBIA: Democracy. Just. The 2001 election was generally held to be free and fair, and was won by Yahya Jammeh, but Jammeh first took power in a 1994 coup, and the 1996 election was considered by observers to be flawed. Media face tight restrictions. The editor of a private newspaper was shot dead days after a 2004 law introducing jail terms for sedition was introduced. The next election will be a big test.

GHANA: Democracy. One of the most stable and well-governed nations in West Africa, President Kufuour's 2000 election victory was nonetheless the first peaceful democratic transition of government since independence. The 2004 election (won again by Kufuor, known as the 'gentle giant') was a role-model of sanity for the entire region. The country also enjoys media freedoms which are a regional benchmark.

GUINEA: Flawed democracy/dictatorship. President Conte won a third term in office in 2003 following a widely-criticised referendum removing presidential term limits (is anyone else sensing a minor pattern here?). The opposition boycotted the presidential election. Conte first took power in a coup in 1984, and has been firmly entrenched in office ever since, though he did ostensibly return the country to civilian rule between 1992 and 1995. Most media are state-controlled.

GUINEA-BISSAU: Transitional. Following a 2003 military coup, former military dictator Joao Bernardo Vieira won 53% of the vote in a 2005 run-off election for president. Despite subsequent clashes between supporters of the rival candidates, the election was generally believed to have been fair. Whether the election of someone who was widely criticised for human rights abuses in his 19 years in power between 1980 and 1999 marks a victory for democracy, however, is an open question.

IVORY COAST: Civil War. It's been all downhill since Laurent Gbagbo deposed the elected president in 2000. The ruling authorities have whipped up xenophobia against Muslim northerners, who then in 2002 rose up in open rebellion following the killing of supporters of their presidential candidate. Despite a 2003 peace deal, the nation remains divided, and Gbagbo has indefinitely postponed an election originally scheduled for 2005.

KENYA: Democracy. But also a classic case of be careful what you wish for... President Kbaki was elected in a massive - and entirely genuine - landslide in 2002. However, his administration's promise to end corruption look increasingly hollow following several on-going graft scandals. But Kbaki lost a 2005 election on introducing a new constitution, so whatever Kenya's economic flaws, democracy seems to be firm for the time being. Media freedoms remain relatively strong.

LESOTHO: Democracy. King Letsie III is a wholly constitutional monarch, and despite opposition protests following Prime Minister Mosisili's 2002 election to a second term, outside observers held that the vote was free and fair. While the media is largely government-run any attempts at censorship would be ineffective as the entire country can pick up South African broadcasts.

LIBERIA: Transitional. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf became Africa's first elected woman President in 2006 following years of brutal civil war. Here's hoping she can bring the country the stability it needs. At present her rule is dependent on the presence of 15,000 UN peacekeepers.

LIBYA: Dictatorship. I assume no one needs to be introduced to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

MADAGASCAR: Flawed Democracy/transitional. Marc Ravalomanana's 2001 election victory was followed by a sometimes violent six month power struggle with his predecessor Didier Ratsiraka. Ratisiraka eventually fled to France, and his supporters in the army switched sides, but the country needs another election before it can claim to have become a true established democracy. The jury's still out.

MALAWI: Flawed democracy. And a slightly weird one. A year after his 2004 election, President Mutharika resigned from the party that had elected him, and started his own party - leaving the President as leader of the opposition to the largest party. External observers also criticised his election for 'serious irregularities'.

MALI: Democracy. President Toure, who won the 2002 election, first came to power in a 1991 coup, but he is genuinely popular for his role in ending the military dictatorship, and is known as 'the soldier of democracy'. His country has one of the freest media climates in all of Africa.

MAURITANIA: Dictatorship. A military government took power after a 2005 coup - albeit one that seems to have had broad popular support. Elections have been promised no later than 2007, but no date has been set.

MAURITIUS: Democracy. A stable, economic and social democratic success story. However, it's really an 'African' nation is open to question.

MOROCCO: Flawed Democracy. Since his accession as monarch in 1999, King Mohammed VI has been on a course of cautious reform. He has allowed moderate Islamist parties to run for office, loosened press restrictions, and released political prisoners, and seems to be genuinely popular (though this is hard to gauge). But King Mohammed still very much maintains overall control.

MOZAMBIQUE: Democracy. And a rare success story. Despite decades of civil war, Mozambique now seems to have developed a functioning democracy. The former rebels criticised the results of the 2005 election, but while outside observers acknowledged some irregularities, they also said these did not change the election results. Media freedoms could be better, but have improved. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

NAMIBIA: Democracy. Swapo have won every election since independence, and despite some opposition complaints about the result, the party's landslide 2004 presidential election seems to have been genuine. The country also has a robust free and independent media.

NIGER: Democracy. Remarkably enough, given the country's poverty and history. Despite the country's problems, President Tandja seems to be widely praised for bringing stability to his country. And since his government finally managed to get around to banning slavery in 2003, everyone has the right to vote. In theory, anyway.

NIGERIA: Democracy. Glorious, flawed, chaotic, ungovernable, beautiful Nigeria. President Obasanjo's 2003 re-election was the first civilian run election in Nigeria in 20 years. No one's going to claim it was perfect, but it was probably the best Nigeria can manage with current resources. However, whether another candidate could summon Obasanjo's level of public support - he's a southerner, but as a Muslim also appeals to northerners - is an open question.

RWANDA: Flawed democracy. President Kagame - an incorruptable teetotaller - first came to power after his Rwandan Patriotic Front overthrew the preceding genocidal government in 1994. He seems to be genuinely popular for his role in bringing stability and reconciliation to his traumatised country, and he won the first post-genocide presidential election in 2002. So far, so good. However, his RPF government does not tolerate criticism or challenges to its authority.

SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE: Democracy. Why, parliamentary elections are taking place right now. How can you sleep at night without knowing the results. Note that democracy has also survived a week-long military coup in 2003 while the president was on a private visit to Nigeria.

SENEGAL: Democracy. However imperfect at times, Senegal has a long-established democratic tradition and - in a rarity for Africa - has seen peaceful democratic transitions of power between political parties. There have been some recent concerns over media freedoms, although traditionally these are quite strong.

SEYCHELLES: Democracy. Not a country I know much about admittedly. Seems to have been a multi-party democracy since 1991, though I note that the same party keeps winning the elections. Media freedoms seem to be improving, though the government does occasionally sue for libel.

SIERRA LEONE: Transitional. After one of the bloodiest and most violent civil wars in recent African history (which is really rather impressive in the abstract), President Kabbah's election to a new term in 2002 (his first term ended in a coup in 1997, then he was reinstated, then he only stayed in power with British military help) seems to have brought stability to the country. However, that stability is still very much dependent on UN military support. Media freedoms have improved, but self-censorship equates with self-preservation. Sometimes quite literally.

SOMALIA: Anarchy. Warlordism is rife, the northern part of the country has unilaterally seceded, and what passes for an official government has to meet in Kenya because the capital's too dangerous. Somalia remains the greatest proof that ethnic homogeneity is no guarantee of African governmental stability.

SOUTH AFRICA: Democracy. The ANC dominates elections, but this reflects genuine vote results. Media freedoms are also robust. Despite inevitable problems, South Africa has managed the transition to majority rule remarkably well.

SUDAN: Transitional/dictatorship. A power-sharing agreement between the central government and southern rebels was signed in 2005. There are, however, no signs of elections (though these have been promised), and the ongoing situation in Darfur remains a problem. Actually, the genocide in Darfur remains a stain on the whole world.

SWAZILAND: Dictatorship. Strictly speaking, an absolute monarchy - the last in Africa - but since king Mswati III rules by decree while driving his fleet of Mercedes through a country afflicted by rural poverty and a 40% HIV infection rate (hardly discouraged by the king's practice of choosing a new virgin bridge every year), dictatorship will do fine as a description. The only independent media outlet is a Christian radio station.

TANZANIA: Democracy. Is now a multi-party democracy holding apparently free and fair elections, but the same party has ruled since independence. Crucially, however, the CCM hasn't always been led by the same person, and the country has been one of the most stable in Africa. Media freedoms are gradually improving, though still imperfect.

TOGO: Flawed democracy. Long-time president Gnassingbe Eyadema died in early 2005 after 38 years in power. The military immediately installed his son, Faure Gnassingbe, provoking widespread international condemnation. The son then held an election in which he won 60% of the vote. The opposition disputed the result, but the situation seems to have calmed down since Gnassingbe Jr. named the main opposition leader as Prime Minister. Whether Togo is a genuine democracy remains open to question, and media freedoms are restricted despite constitutional guarantees.

TUNISIA: Dictatorship. President Ben Ali's share of the vote actually went down last election! To a mere 95%! After three elections where he won 99.9%! Gosh, his people must really be falling out of love with him!

UGANDA: Flawed democracy. President Museveni has done a lot of good for his country since he took power in 1986, but he hasn't done it through free and fair elections. He allowed multi-party elections for the first time early this year, but was widely accused of intimidating the opposition on his way to over 60% over the vote - which was rather sad since he probably would have won anyway. Media freedoms are generally good, though imperfect.

ZAMBIA: Democracy. Despite opposition accusations of ballot-rigging, Levy Mwanawasa's narrow 2001 election victory seems to have been genuine. He is expected to seek re-election this year. Mwanawasa has also won praise for encouraging corruption investigations into his predecesor's rule, despite being the hand-picked successor of President Chiluba. However, defaming the president remains an offence which the government regularly uses against the media.

ZIMBABWE: Dictatorship. Robert Mugabe has perverted the rule of law to maintain his own grip on power. Elections are a fraudulent charade designed to consolidate the ruling party's control. Mugabe has destroyed the economy in a cynical attempt to weaken the opposition. He's one nasty person.




By my count that makes 20 established genuine democracies, or 38% of 53 nations. That's not 70%.

You'll note that merely holding an election by no means guarantees that a country is a fully free democracy. In fact, interpreting where an election is genuinely free and fair, or merely held to offer a democratic veneer to a dictator (or somewhere inbetween) is a fine art. And is certainly an art which you do not possess.

The UN abassadorship is probably just one of those people who thinks that the Americans realy did capture the German Enigma machine just because the film 'U-571' said so. XD
Um, we did. That movie was based on a true story. Getting that machine was a big part in us winning the war.

You're devaluing what is a very worthwhile concept.
in what way?

Um, we did. That movie was based on a true story. Getting that machine was a big part in us winning the war.
Who wants to tell him?

Who wants to tell him?
tell me what?

tell me what?
Just google Enigma War Machine and read about it.

What so bad about America spreading it? I seriously want to know why someone would try to stop us from liberating people. Afghans and Iraqis are happy, Iranians will be soon. If you dont like freedom why do hate it? Seems to me freedom and democracy are good, no?


Lets see...When America invades a sovereign nation that we have not formally declared war on, well thats not exactly freedom. And please tell me how the Iraqis are happy? Are they happy that they have to worry about if they can go outside without being blown to hell by some kind of explosive? if thats happiness, then i am a turtle's penis.