you may not like it, but it is very much present in your foreeign policy. just agree with me that that can cause resentment, will you?

One could agree with you if that were indeed the case in every example. The US's foreign policy only attempts to "export" democracy unto those nations that do not have it, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and, perhaps soon, Iraq. It has stopped trying to force China to become one.

I do agree that it can cause resentment, yet, I am left to wonder: poll after poll in the Arab world shows young Arabs desiring the institutions of the US (they do not like the US's policies), and disliking the restrictions placed on them. So food for thought, I think. Nothing more.

Perhaps I should not have pointed out Bush as saying that it was accepted. Did you get my point though? That argument used can be used to justify how Saddam rules Iraq as well. One could argue that the stability given by not having all that many squabbeling for power is preferrable to possibly uncertain electoral results. I am not saying it is, just that it could be said. And it could be.

Yes, but it can only be used with any qualifying principle if Bush had actually said it, which he did not. He did not say it because it would in the line of a Dictator to say, which Bush is not. So of course Saddam has and will make that argument, for he is a Dictator. It would only seem hypocritical of Americans if we accepted Bush (or someone else) saying it, and then derided Saddam for saying it.

I have always been of the opinion that you should be required to know some certain things in order to vote. The USA demands that foreigners who are going to vote in the USA must know how it works. Why not hold those standards to the rest of the populace?

This is because the US teaches its history and electoral processess in its schools, from Kindergarten up. They hold the same standard to people who want to become Citizens.

They do hold the same standard to the rest of the populace. OHR was talking about knowing things in referrence to people who have decided to vote (over 18 ), and how, often, they do not know much about the candidates they will support. Or they have forgotten or never learned the electoral college or democratic processess.

Yet all your arguments make assumptions, accept them as fact, and continue from there. Often (and I do not say this in anger) I believe your arguments come from ignorance. So too, I have yet to see proof that voters no nothing about who they plan to vote for. This is simply not true: people in the US just don't "suddenly" decide to vote, just for the fun of it. Whether they know the candidate's entire platform or support one side of an issue (gun control, abortion, taxes, tax-cuts vs spending), they are not ignorant.



Here be Myth

This message last edited by Fanatic on 1/19/2003 at 10:51:22 AM.

• Edit 1: 1/19/2003 10:51:22 AM