Is America a democracy? I dont think so.

You have colorful posts, both digitally and emotionally, but very few facts. If the men with the money controlled anything, George Soros could have prevented George W. Bush from becoming president, but he couldn't. If the elitists controlled anything, Jeb Bush would be president now instead of Donald Trump. If the psychopaths controlled anything, Hillary would be president now instead of Trump. It takes a great deal of money and a great deal of very thick skin to run for office these days, but the fact that the wealthy and the psychopathic have an easier time getting elected is not proof that they run the show. And since neither side has a monopoly on either, no group is running the country 100% of the time.

 

Left-wing version of The Illuminati conspiracy theory. ^^^^

 

Every government is a plutocracy. In capitalist republics, only the wealthy can run for office. In any other system, only those in government can get rich. It is a black mark on our system that we have people getting rich from being in government in our country, like the Clintons and Bernie Sanders, neither of whom were rich before getting into government office.

 

I've already given you several.

I think you need to grow up before you are ready for this discussion.

 

I have to correct you and several others on this thread over terminology. The US and Israeli governments do not engage in terrorism, and cannot by definition. Terrorism is the attempt by those who are out of power to effect political change or to create fear by attacking a civilian population. Acts by governments can be carried out by military forces or spies, but as acts of government, they cannot be considered "terrorism" per se. Furthermore, neither the US nor Israel actively supports any organization that engages in terrorism, so neither country can be considered a state sponsor of terrorism. Any organization that the US or Israel actively supports must be engaged in some kind of fight with government or else they won't participate in it. And any acts against a government rather than a civilian population are not considered terrorism. You can call it rebellion or freedom fighting or insurgency, but you can't call it terrorism. Even the US support for Saudi Arabia, which I think is wrong and dangerous, doesn't make the US a state sponsor of terrorism even though Saudi Arabia is. The US doesn't support terrorism and doesn't support the Saudi support of terrorism, but does support the government of Saudi Arabia. But that makes us one step removed from the support of terrorism. Finally, no government that the US supports, even cruel, brutal, murderous ones, can be considered guilty of terrorism because they are not out of power and they are not trying to create political change or create fear but to maintain the status quo. So no, the US is not a state sponsor of terrorism. The Mossad has some quirky ideas about how to ensure Israel's survival, so I can't say they've never given money to a terrorist organization, but at least officially, Israel has never sponsored a terrorist group to my knowledge. The US sponsored the Nicaraguan contras and the CIA encouraged terrorist activities as a way of destabilizing the Sandinista regime, so in that particular instance, we did indeed sponsor terrorism. But that's a long time ago now.

 

I don't think you've offered anything to discuss. And you haven't named one single way that Europeans are freer than Americans, not one.

 

Since you're a Brit then you should know that we have to thank Tony Blair for fruitlessly spending British tax pounds on the fruitless 13 years of war in Afghanistan until it withdrew in 2014.

 

Do you understand what people are talking about when they talk of "Deep State"? The unelected John Bolton just nullified what the elected Donald Trump, the C-in-C, said about withdrawing troops from Syria. Do you call that democratic and libertarian? It's not.

There was never any democratic processes involved in our getting into Syria. How is that democratic?

Some would argue that DJT was elected by a minority. That is, the majority of voters in this "democratic and libertarian" countries voted for a loser.

You don't quite get it RR. Yes, you buy into western and US propaganda, but you are not quite aware of reality, from across the pond.

This country is an oligarchy, plutocracy, fascist government. That is, IT IS NOT a democracy in which the people control the government in any meaningful way. Invoke the "democratic republic" if you like, but it changes nothing. Special interests, NOT the people, control this government.

 

Thank you for making my point--no, democracy does not include or mean torture, rendition and military aggression, yet those are things our government practices.

Therefore, we do not have democracy. We have oligarchy, the rule of special interests.

 

Hmm, it seems you want me to believe that terrorism practiced under the cover of "law" is not actually terrorism. Sorry, no can do GI. Sorry, I am immune to such sophistry as you present.

The US practices military aggression, the killing of innocents by drone, the overthrowing of legitimate governments by force, and you want me to believe that it's all perfectly legal because of silly claims? Sorry, to borrow from Dickens, the law is an ass.

 

Practicing military aggression is something all governments do. The US is no worse and no better than any other. It is justified in my opinion when it is done in the defense of US interests and unjustified when it isn't, but that's simply my opinion.

Killing of innocents by drone is never intentional, so that hardly counts. Killing the guilty by drone is intentional. But I doubt you have a problem with that part.

Overthrowing of "legitimate" governments by force all turns on the definition of "legitimate", doesn't it? And when was the last time the US overthrew any "legitimate" government? Neither the Taliban nor Saddam Hussein came to power through normal legal means. I think the last one was Adolf Hitler in Germany, who reached power through normal legal channels and was granted full dictatorial powers by the Reichstag, and we invaded his country and overthrew his government simply for having the gall to declare war on us. Or is that not what you meant by "legitimate"?

 

I hope it never happens, but in the event you kill somebody, when brought before the court to deal with it, tell the judge that it was unintentional.

Sorry, you seem to have professional grade Rose Colored Glasses through which you view the actions of the US government. Such idealists are pleasant, but that's about it.

 

Sorry but the rich fight for both parties. You can tell that the rich really run the country by the simple fact that for at least the past forty years no President or Congress has done anything to significantly benefit either the poor or the middle class. Might just be coincidence but I doubt it.

And Trump has been the greatest gift for the rich of any recent President.

 

Actually killing of innocents by drone is built into the policy governming the use of military drones and so as such really is intentional. Not saying they don't try to minimize the slaughter but the amount of killing of civilians is directly a functioning of the policies that determine drone use.

And by the way that is no different from most decisions involving use of military weapons.

 

No problem.

 

Nah. Democrats aren't total fools. With the likes of Obama at the helm many didn't want our nation to lead. Now with Trump they are more confident in doing so.

 

True, true.

I must have missed it. Tell me more.

 

Yep, absolutely correct. Pure sophistry. Not to mention that the US "uses" terrorists like ISIS and al-Qaeda (and others besides) to achieve its foreign policy aims.

 

Pretty much verbatim:

 

A lof of truth in what you say, although there are exceptions.

Government should not be a path to wealth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth

 

John Bolton was appointed by Trump who could sack him if he wished. Only a dictator has everything he wants, democracy is compromise. You can't have a referendum every time you take military action, the President can act but the legislature must eventually endorse (which they do). Yes Trump was elected by minority but everyone agreed on the terms beforehand (why not pop over to my 'How would you change the US political system?' thread).
Surely Trump (and Obama?) prove that it's NOT an oligarchy or plutocracy, that the political outsider can win power? And it's certainly not a fascist society, how do you get that?

 

Not fruitless, that's where AQ were and the Taliban wouldn't give them up. The last word on Telic has yet to be written so we'll see, I think no matter who had been Prime Minister we would have taken part.

 

So one says it's sophistry and one says it's a children's book, but neither can respond to the actual claim that you all are misusing the word "terrorism". And I thought this was a debate site.

Explain how the US uses ISIS or al-Qaeda to achieve any foreign policy aims, preferably without any conspiracy theory nonsense like Bush did 9/11.

 

Never mind the facts. The U.S. could never have engaged in terrorist activities.

 

No, because the US is not "out of power". The US is a government entity. When it engages in military action, it's a military action, not terrorism. Terrorism is the act of civilians against civilian targets. Guerilla warfare is the act of paramilitary types against military targets. War is the act of military types against military targets. The bombing of London by the Germans and the bombing of Dresden by the British & Americans killed thousands of civilians but are not considered terrorism because the civilians were incidental to the official military targets of an existing government. Or take Peru and The Shining Path. The acts of the Shining Path were acts of terrorism. The acts of the government were not, even if they were as brutal and murderous. The distinction is important if only because you people keep using that word and it doesn't mean what you think it means.