ehbrums1 wrote:dubunked wrote:ehbrums1 wrote:The Bush era has nothing to do with this. America has a long running tradition of doing shitty things to people under the false guise of "instituting democracy". The only dirty work going on is by the US government invading countries and overthrowing democratically elected officials. From what I'm reading it seems as if you want the US to be the new UN....
LOL so either you're a commie or you're a neocon according to dsf???? There's no inbetween? Want the US to be the new UN? I want a new UN to be the new US. In other words, a supra-national organization like the LoN or the UN that takes the US's role in global affairs.
So if you want the UN to be more like the US you want them to invade countries at will?? because thats been our foreign policy for the past few decades with regards to countries that don't bend their knee to us
Also, just cause a leader was democratically elected doesn't mean he lead democratically. If Hitler was democratically elected, does that mean we should never intervene and just let him commit whatever crimes he wants? Not to mention many alleged "democratic elections" are farces.
Iran, 1953
Guatemala, 1954
Congo, 1960
Dominican Republic, 1961
South Vietnam, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Chile, 1973
Nicaragua, 1979-1990's
Re bold: not necessarily. A highly organized and powerful world organization would probably not need to use military force. They could use some sort of representative and democratic deliberation process and decide "okay, this guy is doing a really shitty job and we're concerned that he's going to invade Ukraine, and we don't think it's a systemic problem, it's a "Putin" problem, therefore, he's gotta go." they tell him to peace and he peaces cause they're more powerful than him. then they hold a new election.
they don't allow countries to use propaganda to brainwash their citizens, a big reason why putin keeps being elected and why the russians - and ukrainians - love him so much. putin has manipulated the russian system, changed the rules, extended presidential terms limits and lengths, and done plenty of shady things to essentially be the leader of russia for the past what, 15 years now? a supra-govt organization with actual power could stop that kinda shit from happening. If a country thought they had the resources to challenge the organizaiton militarily and was a threat, and if it's justified, then it's justified. war isn't 100% out of the question. but if the UN had real power, there probably wouldn't be (m)any wars.
and obviously there's careful oversight to make sure the UN doesn't become corrupted. like i just don't understand why in 2014 we haven't figured this democracy thing out yet.
Re that list, I don't get what your point is. I'm not some sort of an apologist for America and I acknowledge we've done plenty of questionable things in the past and present and probably will in the future. But if England was running the world for the past 50 years, don't think for a second that they would have done everything perfectly.