• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

20 Years after Tiananmen

20 years on and the Socialists States are still oppressing their people and refusing to give them anything other than a one-party police State.

If you can't vote to change your leaders then you are a slave to the State.
 
So we should invade China? :confused:

Well America is the defender of democracy right?

But we don't have to invade. We could crush them economically. We have the technology and the unemployed work force to do it too. But a few CEO's might have to get paid less. So not an option I suppose.
 
Well America is the defender of democracy right?

But we don't have to invade. We could crush them economically. We have the technology and the unemployed work force to do it too. But a few CEO's might have to get paid less. So not an option I suppose.

Um, as it is right now I think China has more of a chance of crushing us economically. How about we stop trying to playing the world dictator of countries governments and let the countries have the governments the citizens allow to take power?
 
Um, as it is right now I think China has more of a chance of crushing us economically. How about we stop trying to playing the world dictator of countries governments and let the countries have the governments the citizens allow to take power?

Hmm, good point but only because China has our jobs.
 
Democracy is a philosophy of failure.

We should never go to war to bring that to another country.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

~ Winston Churchill
 
It's amazing how with some people, there's nothing in this world which isn't our fault.
And it's way more amazing when those certain people declare themselves as "Moderates" :2razz:
 
Tiananmen 20th anniversary brings new repression - Yahoo! News

"It is the dream of all Chinese people to have democracy!" the crowd gathered in Hong Kong's famous Victoria Park sang in unison."

Too bad this is ignored in favor of invading oil rich countries.

Yeah, let's invade China. I just have this little confusing problem about what people want. The Global Left wants to monopolize the notion of equality, freedom of expression, and basic human rights, yet have no energy beyond a picket sign. Their picket signs even protest action to bring such things to some people, while dismissing these aspects, for favor of protesting pure oil greed (It doesn't matter that the population receives an opportunity for the Leftist dream in the process, you see). I'm sure they will put the picket signs down and cheer the military on as they move past one Chinese village after another liberating the oppressed and "forcing our culture" down their throats.

President Clinton (the hero of the left) sought to inspire Americans to support a bold global role - to give a sense of purpose and idealism to the country's actions in the world, lest the American people and their leaders succumb to the temptation to withdraw. This resembled the neoconservative effort to build new national projects. President Clinton's era saw repeated attempts to end the UN's hypocritical containment mission in Iraq with us as enforcer and blame taker, police action against genocide in two other "new" nations in Europe, and a fixed coup in a Caribbean island nation. All represented the neocon's agenda to bring true peace and westernized democracy to the world. Such things ensures that we have less and less work to do in regards to making sure our much wider and bigger interests are secure in the long term.

But when it came to the oil rich nation of Iraq, the neocon was branded as evil by the Left, which often abandons it false principles to reveal more of its true identity. They had no problem accepting neocon agenda (of whose members were all former Democrats turned Republican during the Carter era because the Leftist sermon was more BS than sincerity) when their guy sits in the White House, but not so much when there sits another.
 
Yeah, let's invade China. I just have this little confusing problem about what people want. The Global Left wants to monopolize the notion of equality, freedom of expression, and basic human rights, yet have no energy beyond a picket sign. Their picket signs even protest action to bring such things to some people, while dismissing these aspects, for favor of protesting pure oil greed (It doesn't matter that the population receives an opportunity for the Leftist dream in the process, you see). I'm sure they will put the picket signs down and cheer the military on as they move past one Chinese village after another liberating the oppressed and "forcing our culture" down their throats.

President Clinton (the hero of the left) sought to inspire Americans to support a bold global role - to give a sense of purpose and idealism to the country's actions in the world, lest the American people and their leaders succumb to the temptation to withdraw. This resembled the neoconservative effort to build new national projects. President Clinton's era saw repeated attempts to end the UN's hypocritical containment mission in Iraq with us as enforcer and blame taker, police action against genocide in two other "new" nations in Europe, and a fixed coup in a Caribbean island nation. All represented the neocon's agenda to bring true peace and westernized democracy to the world. Such things ensures that we have less and less work to do in regards to making sure our much wider and bigger interests are secure in the long term.

But when it came to the oil rich nation of Iraq, the neocon was branded as evil by the Left, which often abandons it false principles to reveal more of its true identity. They had no problem accepting neocon agenda (of whose members were all former Democrats turned Republican during the Carter era because the Leftist sermon was more BS than sincerity) when their guy sits in the White House, but not so much when there sits another.

It's not just about the oil. It's about the fact that Iraq didn't have any defense and the Bush admin knew it. Who is the current enemy in Iraq? Factions of insurgents that's who. We are not fighting a military, we're fighting militia. The same type of people who would organize and fight if the U.S. was ever invaded.
 
It's not just about the oil. It's about the fact that Iraq didn't have any defense and the Bush admin knew it. Who is the current enemy in Iraq? Factions of insurgents that's who. We are not fighting a military, we're fighting militia. The same type of people who would organize and fight if the U.S. was ever invaded.

OK. So what?
 
It's amazing how with some people, there's nothing in this world which isn't our fault.

In 1989, the U.S. could have done something about Tiananmen and the massacre. We could have also done something about our then ally Saddam Hussein. But no, our diplomat in Iraq was privy to saying the U.S. had no opinion in what the Iraqi government would do about the disputed oil field that spanned both the borders of Iraq and Kuwait, which Saddam was bitching to the U.N. for years about only to be ignored in favor of Saudi Arabia. You know, the country where most Al-Qaida terrorists come from? And which there is/was evidence of them giving amnisty and medical attention to the man sitting to the left of Osama Bin Laden on the tape discovered after the 9/11 attacks.
 
In 1989, the U.S. could have done something about Tiananmen and the massacre. We could have also done something about our then ally Saddam Hussein. But no, our diplomat in Iraq was privy to saying the U.S. had no opinion in what the Iraqi government would do about the disputed oil field that spanned both the borders of Iraq and Kuwait, which Saddam was bitching to the U.N. for years about only to be ignored in favor of Saudi Arabia. You know, the country where most Al-Qaida terrorists come from? And which there is/was evidence of them giving amnisty and medical attention to the man sitting to the left of Osama Bin Laden on the tape discovered after the 9/11 attacks.

Thank you for bolstering my point.
 
So remind me as to why we are there?

What does "why we are there" have anything to do with what I quoted you on?

But thank you again for continuing to bolster my point.
 
And it's way more amazing when those certain people declare themselves as "Moderates" :2razz:


What's a centrist anyway?

Never mind,

Positions — The Centrist Party

Security

"To be a beacon of freedom and democracy we must practice and enforce the protection of these ideals at home and abroad. Enhance state department communications capacity. Recognize actions have short and long term consequences. Support and empower the military rather than outsource. Commit to conflict only when justified by fact of established threat, required action, not agenda. We should not be afraid to draw the sword, nor to sheath it. Once committed, attend to pentagon protocols for success in-theater including manpower and equipment."
 
In other words, no matter what we do -- or, as it happens, don't do -- it's always wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom