Mao came to power as a result of civil war, and was heavily supported by the democratically elected government of democratic USA. Stalin came to power as a result of a 'popular' revolution. Hitler was democratically elected. More recently the democratically elected governments of USA and some european states have caused the destruction or near destruction of Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt - all previously stable, secular states - by taking their own democratic mandate as permission to impose democracy on other nations.
You can add to that the US actively turning the people against a leader they didn't like, as happened when the US were financially backing Salvador Allende's opponents to prevent him getting elected, and when that failed they spent millions to distribute anti-Allende propaganda throughout the country - all of which caused the country to collapse and General Pinochet to take charge of the country, because in the eyes of the US it was more tolerable to have a dictator who killed thousands of Chileans in charge than a socialist.
As rwaeb says, it's the least worst option. Whilst I'd agree that the US in particular should keep their noses out of another country's business, I doubt that their motives were exactly the propagation of democracy. The US has absolutely no objection to dictators, so long as he's their dictator!...
Iran's the most obvious and undeniable example, in my opinion. Removed a diplomatically elected leader because he was happy with oil being a nationalised business.
And it's quite interesting that a number of parallels could be drawn between his replacement installed by the US, and Bashar Assad, so vehemently opposed by the US, some 4 decades later, in the name of democracy.
Their stated aims were the propogation of democracy, as they have been throughout the region. With it being the "least worst option", for me that depends on a number of factors. Sometimes it is, but for me it's important to recognise that that isn't always the case. One only needs to look at the state of the middle east now to realise that, I would suggest.
You don't even need separate figures to do that comparison, though. Saddam Hussein does it on his own. I'm sure that the vast majority of the American people wouldn't support stuff like this, if they were told about it at the time. The problem is dodgy bastards a false narrative to support wars that suit certain corporations.
Exactly, democracy is the last of their aims. With the US it will be either political influence or just sheer greed. They couldn't give a flying **** about the rights of the people in those countries, or what kind of regime they live under. And, if the American public are just gullible enough to elect Trump, it will get even worse!
Agree throughly with all of that NSS. Except for the last bit. Idiot as Trump is, he's not the warmonger Clinton is imo. That bitch would be a total disaster imo, so much so that I'd be pleased even for Trump to get in ahead of her.
I really can't agree, Rob. I think Trump is genuinely mentally unstable - bordering on sociopathic, probably. Clinton may be a cold hearted bitch, but she's far less dangerous that egomaniac!
Democracy is a word that covers a great range of different governments. Even Soviet Russia claimed to have democratic elections. In the the 1950's Laurens van der Post travelled in what was then U.S.S.R. Talking to a local in Moscow he asked, wouldn't you prefer to have democratic elections? We do said the Russian. Yes but they are all communists said Laurens. Well yours are all capitalists said the Russian. Democracy is in the eye of the beholder. The Swiss have referendums on many things, in the UK much of our government is by appointment rather than by vote. The House of Lords is clearly NOT democratic and many of the decisions concerning the fine detail of our daily life are taken by appointed committees. You could argue that the UK is run by Trusts and Quangos and that's without the huge influence of multinationals. All in all the word Democracy has so many variations it's use tends to cloud the issue rather than illuminate.
Clinton's just a modern politician. Trump's a lunatic. He literally can't resist attacking anyone who's even vaguely slighted him. His, "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?", question and talking about classified meetings to the media are incredibly scary. And now they appear to be the only ones that are actually looking out for the electorate, rather ironically. They'll be gone soon, then!
I'd say Hillary is just as dangerous as Trump for that precise reason. Trump often acts rashly, recklessly even, and many of his decisions make little to no sense to anyone but him (which makes him comparable to the likes of Stalin or Idi Amin) - but Hillary is not just cold and calculating but she knows what she is doing and makes no bones about it, which makes her comparable with the likes of Franco or Pinochet. That's not better, it's just another version of really ****ing bad.
Right. The single biggest fault of US foreign policy has always been its hypocritical support of dictatorships over popular governments. I'll also mention that I don't see Hillary as anywhere near as dangerous as Trump. Hillary wants to be a successful mediocrity like Bill and Obama, but isn't half as good at politics. But IMO the chances of her doing something really unexpected are very small. The chances of Trump getting into a war on impulse seem to me far too great to risk. It is a matter of opinion, of course. But Trump's finger on the button ought to be enough to vote against him, I think. I really and honestly think he might launch a nuclear strike. His frankly racist views should also be enough to earn reasonable people's opposition. Having said all that, if you're willing to look past the racism, and are willing to risk Armageddon, neither of which I think are wise, the chances of Trump being a good president are probably better than Hillary's. I can't see Hillary being anything other than poor. There's little chance, I would guess, of her being either as bad as W. or as average as Obama.
I think Corbyn might take issue with your first point!... I'm no Clinton fan, I assure you. But Trump is by far the greater danger to global security. Trump is a complete egocentric. Seeing himself as the most powerful man on the planet will feed that massively. He's a truly frightening prospect as president of the USA.
As individuals, Trump strikes me as someone who attacks other people because theyve attacked him, or because he's scared they will attack him. Clinton appears to be someome who attacks someone because she likes doing it. Her foreign policy is hawkishly interventionist, whereas Trump's is to try to stay out of things. Trump will have those with more brains and sense than him to implement his broadly peaceful policies, which means they might have some chance of crewting stability. Clinton's on the other hand have no chance, because she's hell bent on war. She also strikes me as being pro this insane world of women bullying the world into submission, in the name of equality. I aint happy about Trump, but compared to a world of feminazis and democratic invasions, I for one would be happy to take the risk.
While the point about democracy being in the eye of the beholder is literally true, it may lead to a kind of moral relativism which isn't advisable, I think. Distinguishing the truly evil from the routinely crummy is the key element in the political process, I think. Among those who failed it were the many leftists in Germany who advocated abstaining from the elections rather than voting against Hitler, on the grounds that Hitler and the others were all as bad as each other. (And which law have I now followed...?) From a practical point of view, the key question, I think, is whether a country has a voting process that offers a reasonable chance that people can throw the bums out, and replace them with other bums. Dictatorships often and perhaps typically outperform democracies in the short term. The problem is that when they start to fail they can't be thrown out by any means but violence. They also typically try to prop up their popularity by starting a war. It's remarkable that democracies have either almost never or never fought each other since ancient times. Dictatorships have fought democracies and each other hundreds of times. Bourgeois republics of the European or North American kind have never aimed for democracy. They've aimed to protect the interests of the rich by allowing most people certain limited powers. So on reflection I should not have said they promote or favor democracy at all. What I should have said was that the bourgeois republic and the mixed economy have proved much better than the alternatives.
Hasn't Obama been fairly average because he's been blocked from doing anything by the Republicans, though? My hope for this election is that it'll become a total humiliation and they'll lose the Senate, too. The insane gerrymandering might stop that happening, though.
The problem with democracy is it encourages professional politicians. I would be in favour of our parliament being selected at random from the population in the same manner that we select juries. That way we get a genuine cross-section of society, right, left, rich, poor, crazies and racists all included, and it is seen as genuine public service which is compulsory for a given period of time.
Yes, if I thought Trump's attitude was mere posturing or pandering to the disgruntled electorate , I'd feel more at ease. But, having tried to read one of his books ( laughably scary!) and watched and listened to him, I am firmly of the opinion that he's mentally unstable, and certainly unfit to be president.
