The Glorious American Justice system!

[rvg]

I'm a fair minded guy. Liberals can be imbeciles, too.

Come to Michigan then! It's a locally Red state that is almost completely Blue on the federal level. Heck, we don't even have the death penalty here.

[Papewaio]

How would you define an authoritarian police state? Specifically, what attributes would make a state authoritarian, and what attributes would classify it as a police state?

One that has secret courts and spies on all its citizens foreign and a lot of their domestic communications would be one...
Oh that's another thread...

USA can do its own things in its own country. Just don't go touting 'We are the leaders of the free world' without the stats to back 'em up like voter particaption, life span, access to health, access to representation etc

If you can stop spouting that the POTUS is the leader of the free world then maybe the Vikings will stop stating the obvious that you aren't.

[rvg]

If you can stop spouting that the POTUS is the leader of the free world then maybe the Vikings will stop stating the obvious that you aren't.

What exactly makes one a leader of the free world? And if we're not the leader, then who is? Not that leadership is a privilege or anything like that. It's a burden. I'd be happy to see us turn back to isolationism if that was a viable option, but alas. We're the leader alright, but all we have to show for it is a group of ungrateful do-nothing "allies" with the notable exception of the Brits. Leadership is overrated at least as far as its benefits go.

[Papewaio]

Swords are not ploughs.

How good a life all the citizens lead within a country determines leadership within the free world. Not how many people can be stomped on.

[rvg]

Swords are not ploughs. How good a life all the citizens lead within a country determines leadership within the free world. Not how many people can be stomped on.

That still doesn't answer the question of which country should take the torch of leadership in the free world. I'd venture a guess that there will be no takers.

[Papewaio]

That still doesn't answer the question of which country should take the torch of leadership in the free world. I'd venture a guess that there will be no takers.

I'm not convinced that there can be a leadership position for freedom. It's certainly not attained by force of arms or spying on everyone. It is like leading a horse to water, sure you can get it there but you can't make it drink. Freedom is something people have to want and strive for at a grass root level. Freedom is a personal choice as much as an environmental one.

If there is a leadership role for freedom it isn't based on force or arms but the quality of life of a countries citizens and the positive benefit the nation has on other people's lives.

[rvg]

I'm not convinced that there can be a leadership position for freedom. It's certainly not attained by force of arms or spying on everyone. It is like leading a horse to water, sure you can get it there but you can't make it drink. Freedom is something people have to want and strive for at a grass root level. Freedom is a personal choice as much as an environmental one.

If there is a leadership role for freedom it isn't based on force or arms but the quality of life of a countries citizens and the positive benefit the nation has on other people's lives.

That would work. In vacuum. Or in the land of the prancing ponies. The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom. Freedom isn't free. It's not worth a plug nickel if it cannot stand up for itself and protect itself.

[Brenus]

“The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom.”
Yeah, we had the phase in French Democracy development as well, few centuries ago… The Revolutionary’s armies freed Europe in the 18th Century of it Tyrants, proclaimed Republics everywhere they could. It was their duty and burden. However, someone (Robespierre) told: People don’t like armed prophets. He was absolutely right.
Apparently the French (Republican) idea of Freedom was not was the rest of Europe wanted. What a shame…
It took 7 coalitions and 20 years for Europeans Monarchies and Empires to destroy the idea and they re-installed a despot on the Throne of France (and this was their idea of freedom).

Back to the US leadership of the free world, as stated, it is more the right to do what they want freely than really defending freedom as concept. What get me is the US policy hard core supporter’s whinging. They want to roam the Earth freely as they pleased, but if someone kill them they don’t understand and complain than no one love them (ungrateful). At the time of Colonial Powers, the French crushed rebellions, but they never asked why the rebellions happened. They knew.
When you impose your laws and your interests upon populations there are backlashes. And yes, we were kicked out by the ungrateful leaders of these countries, men and women we educated in our schools. And they did it on the name of the values written in the French Constitution, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, because the French forgot what these concepts mean, and that they are Universal.

[Husar]

What exactly makes one a leader of the free world? And if we're not the leader, then who is? Not that leadership is a privilege or anything like that. It's a burden. I'd be happy to see us turn back to isolationism if that was a viable option, but alas. We're the leader alright, but all we have to show for it is a group of ungrateful do-nothing "allies" with the notable exception of the Brits. Leadership is overrated at least as far as its benefits go.

You're the leader of Americanism or the American empire perhaps, but not of the free world. With such a large prison system, surveillance programs, military occupations, torture programs and a "we're stronger, suck it up or try to fight us"-attitude you can hardly claim to be a leader in terms of freedom.

That would work. In vacuum. Or in the land of the prancing ponies. The good old Earth however requires the ability to project deadly force in order to protect freedom. Freedom isn't free. It's not worth a plug nickel if it cannot stand up for itself and protect itself.

The only freedom you protect is the freedom to be spied on universally and to have a government that is more influenced by corporate interest than the interest of the people it governs. And maybe the freedom of the USA to do whatever it wants with both allies and enemies. Why would anyone want to follow you other than because they want to be with the biggest bully rather than against him? Where is the freedom in that?

Back to the US leadership of the free world, as stated, it is more the right to do what they want freely than really defending freedom as concept. What get me is the US policy hard core supporter’s whinging. They want to roam the Earth freely as they pleased, but if someone kill them they don’t understand and complain than no one love them (ungrateful). At the time of Colonial Powers, the French crushed rebellions, but they never asked why the rebellions happened. They knew.

Exactly.

[Montmorency]

Leaving aside this strange concept of "freedom", the point is merely that most non-Americans do not share rvg's perspective: namely, that there is no reason for non-Americans to be upset when America imposes its agenda on them -

America is a (relatively)* benevolent master, after all...

So the problem is a lack of empathy. Whether or not it pushes decision-making into the realm of the gentle or sentimental, it is a good idea to at least recognize how people feel, how they have come to feel this way, and how natural such feelings are, if only to better effect your own hegemony. If you don't mind that others hate you, then prudence dictates that you take the precaution of working to maintain the sentiment at a substrate-level, and to do this you must first understand the sentiment on a more-than-surface level.

Or, you know, maybe let's leave it at 'everyone just hates America out of jealousy cuz America is rich and better than them'...

So keep in mind that, while the majority of states desperately want American support and attention, this is mostly due to the economic benefits such things entail, as well as the fact that a distant strong America is preferable for many to a nearby strong Russia or China. But geopolitical winds change, you know. If Russian and Chinese projection can/will fade in time, then so can/will the USA's...

*What is missed whenever America's relative benevolence is mentioned is the fact that the conditions that produce this historical benevolence are such that they automatically raise the bar for benevolence. Just keep in mind that ethical standards and contemporary (for any point) conditions are inextricably intertwined. Obviously, Romanesque expand-and-devastate (or vice-versa) would almost immediately precipitate both an American civil war and a World War.

[Husar]

Leaving aside this strange concept of "freedom", the point is merely that most non-Americans do not share rvg's perspective: namely, that there is no reason for non-Americans to be upset when America imposes its agenda on them -

America is a (relatively)* benevolent master, after all...

Is it so hard to see the discrepancy between having freedom and having a master?

I don't think rvg wants the government to be his master, even if it were a benevolent master, but America being the master of the "free" world is fine. It's a bit like communist dictatorships calling themselves peoples' democracies...

[rvg]

...However, someone (Robespierre) told: People don’t like armed prophets. He was absolutely right.

What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.

[Slyspy]

What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.

Things are rarely that black and white.

[rvg]

You're the leader of Americanism or the American empire perhaps, but not of the free world. With such a large prison system, surveillance programs, military occupations, torture programs and a "we're stronger, suck it up or try to fight us"-attitude you can hardly claim to be a leader in terms of freedom.

Okay, then who is the leader if not us?

The only freedom you protect is the freedom to be spied on universally and to have a government that is more influenced by corporate interest than the interest of the people it governs. And maybe the freedom of the USA to do whatever it wants with both allies and enemies. Why would anyone want to follow you other than because they want to be with the biggest bully rather than against him? Where is the freedom in that?

I sense someone's precious feeling being hurt. Everybody spies. We're no different from anyone else in that sense. As for why anyone would follow us, I don't know, some do it to save money on defense budget, others do it because our interests align. Can you speak for everyone?

[Husar]

Okay, then who is the leader if not us?

Noone. The UN was supposed to take a leading function among nations but nationalistic interests of the strongest nations at the time resulting in veto powers ruined it.

I sense someone's precious feeling being hurt. Everybody spies. We're no different from anyone else in that sense. As for why anyone would follow us, I don't know, some do it to save money on defense budget, others do it because our interests align. Can you speak for everyone?

Does the government always speak for everyone?
How do you know my feelings are hurt? Do you work for the NSA or are you just trying to mock me?

Everybody spies but not everybody spies on friends and foes alike and not every population is willing to tolerate it.
It's just a cheap excuse that ignores the scale at which some nations do it and the fact that everybody doing something bad does not make it good.

[HoreTore]

Noone. The UN was supposed to take a leading function among nations but nationalistic interests of the strongest nations at the time resulting in veto powers ruined it.

I'd say Amnesty fits.

[rvg]

Noone. The UN was supposed to take a leading function among nations but nationalistic interests of the strongest nations at the time resulting in veto powers ruined it.

Interesting. Remember our old pal Muammar? He didn't really bother anyone, all he wanted was to massacre a few dissenters in Benghazi. Easy-peasy, but no, the U.N. doesn't take very kindly at such action and passes a scary resolution. Muammar ratchets up the rate of killing. What does the U.N. do next? The U.N. looks at America and expects us to deal with Muammar. France and Italy would love the idea as well, but they themselves don't seem to be able to do it. Suddenly they realize that without proper logistics in place they can't do a thing to stop Muammar. French and Italian plans that can almost reach Muammar make him almost scared and force him to almost halt the drive towards Benghazi. So France and Italy also look at America and expect us to fix this.
Our cruise missiles start flying and the rest is history. Moral of the story is that high ideals are worthless without the ability and the will to enforce them.

Does the government always speak for everyone?

Not for everyone, but for the majority. Usually.

How do you know my feelings are hurt? Do you work for the NSA or are you just trying to mock me?

Just a guess.

Everybody spies but not everybody spies on friends and foes alike...

And you know this how?

[ICantSpellDawg]

No one has respect for the law here. We just don't want to do hard time or lose rights, which is the consequence of an endless list of insignificant and non-violent errors. The government is a monster which must be overcome.

Too many people are persecuted for too little and it is not going unnoticed. The law protects established interests and intolerant curmudgeons and we are doing our best to unravel the legal system that we've (people who no one knows who lived many years ago who had a trivial understanding of reality) created. You know, except for nanny staters who seek to expand the list of nonviolent offences that put you in jail. Keeping property that you have owned legally, smoking plants in your own home, recording police betraying their oaths, etc

The US government and the legal system it supports is a global disgrace. It is a criminal enterprise which seeks to weaken free thought, free expression and free will while expanding draconian control over everyone and everything. The good news? So is every government out there. The beasts have taken the reigns, and it is time to wrest them back. The government can do good things if it remembers why it exists in the first place.

[Husar]

Interesting. Remember our old pal Muammar? He didn't really bother anyone, all he wanted was to massacre a few dissenters in Benghazi. Easy-peasy, but no, the U.N. doesn't take very kindly at such action and passes a scary resolution. Muammar ratchets up the rate of killing. What does the U.N. do next? The U.N. looks at America and expects us to deal with Muammar. France and Italy would love the idea as well, but they themselves don't seem to be able to do it. Suddenly they realize that without proper logistics in place they can't do a thing to stop Muammar. French and Italian plans that can almost reach Muammar make him almost scared and force him to almost halt the drive towards Benghazi. So France and Italy also look at America and expect us to fix this.
Our cruise missiles start flying and the rest is history. Moral of the story is that high ideals are worthless without the ability and the will to enforce them.

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be the world police and other nations adapt to it. Then you have to be the world police and complain that other people use you as the world police. If you don't want to babysit European countries, you could start by leaving NATO and abandoning all your bases in Europe.

And you know this how?

Completely different laws. We also have less CCTV than the British for example.

[rvg]

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to be the world police and other nations adapt to it. Then you have to be the world police and complain that other people use you as the world police.

I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that high ideals cannot be implemented without someone having to do the dirty work.

If you don't want to babysit European countries, you could start by leaving NATO and abandoning all your bases in Europe.

I would love to see us do that.

Completely different laws. We also have less CCTV than the British for example.

Laws? We're talking about spying here, it by definition runs contrary to laws.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That still doesn't answer the question of which country should take the torch of leadership in the free world. I'd venture a guess that there will be no takers.

The concept is Oxymoronic. America lead the Free World during the Cold War because of its overwhelming military might, having deliberately beggared Britain and France, undermined our economies, dismantled our Empires, bound us to you be debt. America was never the Good Guy - you were the Big Guy who was preferable to the Ruskies.

Now the ruskies are no longer such a terrible threat - we no longer need you to "lead us".

What, you thought it was a moral thing?

[rvg]

The concept is Oxymoronic. America lead the Free World during the Cold War because of its overwhelming military might...

Is that a bad thing?

...having deliberately beggared Britain and France, undermined our economies, dismantled our Empires, bound us to you be debt.

Interesting. Did we provoke the entire African continent to start an independence movement? Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.

America was never the Good Guy - you were the Big Guy who was preferable to the Ruskies.

WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...

Now the ruskies are no longer such a terrible threat - we no longer need you to "lead us".

No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage.

[The Stranger]

Interesting. Did we provoke the entire African continent to start an independence movement? Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.

you definitely had a hand in it, and so had russia.

WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...

so russia wouldnt take it all :/

No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage.

you kinda are, although not at gunpoint.

[Brenus]

“What did Robespierre know about freedom? He was too busy harvesting heads. The man was a bloodthirsty tyrant who had guillotined thousands of innocent people.”: That is the story developed by his enemies and the reasons they gave to justify their actions. Unfortunately, it is the shared (by false) representation of his actions, Not that he didn’t killed (his policy) some people, but they were far from being innocents. But that is another debate.

“Was it us who stirred up India or Indochina? You bear the responsibility for losing your empires, we had no hand in that. We didn't stand to gain anything from your losses.” I don’t know for India but for Indochina I have some lights and, err, yes, USA wanted to make the pacific a big Mare Nostrum (and succeeded). Yes, USA did support Vietminh against the French until Korean War (Major Patty’s mission). As the matter of losing our Empires, that was a good thing, even if my father was one of the soldiers fighting to keep it.

“WWI comes to mind. We joined in strictly to help out...” Joining the winners…

“No problem, we are not holding anyone hostage”… Right… Asked Allende and several South American Countries their opinions about it… How many times did you try to kill Castro, and why do you still have an illegal blockade on Cuba?

“so russia wouldnt take it all” Not in WW1. Fear of Communism, not really at that time…

[The Stranger]

“so russia wouldnt take it all” Not in WW1. Fear of Communism, not really at that time…

ah i missread. I thought he wrote ww2

[rvg]

That is the story developed by his enemies and the reasons they gave to justify their actions. Unfortunately, it is the shared (by false) representation of his actions, Not that he didn’t killed (his policy) some people, but they were far from being innocents. But that is another debate.

And you know this how exactly?

I don’t know for India but for Indochina I have some lights and, err, yes, USA wanted to make the pacific a big Mare Nostrum (and succeeded). Yes, USA did support Vietminh against the French until Korean War (Major Patty’s mission).

We only supported Vietminh in their struggle against the Japanese.

Joining the winners…

When we joined in 1917 the Entente bloc wasn't doing too well.

… Right… Asked Allende and several South American Countries their opinions about it…

Allende was deposed by the local junta. If you think otherwise, prove it.

How many times did you try to kill Castro, and why do you still have an illegal blockade on Cuba?

It's called an embargo. We are not obligated to trade with anyone. As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.

[TinCow]

The have an interesting definition of "nonviolent". Here's one of the first descriptions I clicked on:

John Montgomery said that immediately before committing the armed burglary that led to his life without parole sentence, he was turned away from the hospital, where he sought treatment for his mental illness, because there was no room.

And another a few clicks later:

Alfonse Danner, a decorated U.S. Navy veteran, served in the Persian Gulf War. After that, “things went downhill for me,” he says. Danner will die behind bars for armed burglary and grand theft.

Last I checked, burglarizing a home while armed was a violent offense.

[Brenus]

“And you know this how exactly?” Exactly in the same way you known he was a “bloody” dictator.

“We only supported Vietminh in their struggle against the Japanese” Read more.

“When we joined in 1917 the Entente bloc wasn't doing too well.” Read more : US army was not ready in 1917, so the only impact was psychological. Have to be equipped and trained by the English and the French. They were ready to take part in the last offensive in 1918 and their help, if not vital, was appreciated.

“Allende was deposed by the local junta. If you think otherwise, prove it.” Read on the subject. Operation Condor and Charlie.

“As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.” Yeah yeah yeah…Good old propaganda…

“We are not obligated to trade with anyone.” Ho? You don’t belong to the World Trade Organisation? Read about it, you really need to have your facts right.

It is amazing how you are unprepared for any debate, thinking that to be rude and offensive is enough…

[HoreTore]

“As for trying to kill Castro, he deserve as much for conspiring with the commies and nearly causing the WW3.” Yeah yeah yeah…Good old propaganda…

Funny how it's "conspiring and nearly causing ww3" when the missiles were shipped to Cuba as a response to NATO nukes deployed near eastern europe(Italy and Turkey, iirc)... It wasn't to gain a nuclear advantage, it was to eliminate the nuclear advantage enjoyed by NATO.

Also, Castro only turned to the USSR when it became obvious the US was and would remain hostile. He wasn't a soviet loyalist from the start.

[rvg]

“... Exactly in the same way you known he was a “bloody” dictator...

...Read more...
...Read more...
...Read on the subject...
...Yeah yeah yeah…Good old propaganda…
...Read about it...

Your "arguments" are a joke. I'm not wasting any more time on your nonsense.