Would you live in a fascist state? - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14806893
starman2003 wrote::lol: Heck, even Hitler, in actual practice, favored the rich capitalists over the proles.

You can't expect significant change until the present system really screws up.


Have you ever lived in a right wing authoritarian country?
#14807161
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do so many peoole in the US like right wing dictators, yet never choose that for the US?


Well maybe they would choose it if they could, but the opportunity never presents itself?

I suppose it is just like communists living in non-communist countries.
#14807206
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do so many people in the US like right wing dictators, yet never choose that for the US?


As a US resident, I can say it is because the US is already so inherently right-wing that it doesn't need a dictator to enforce its polices. Hell, it doesn't even have a proper democracy. :lol:
#14807442
Political Interest wrote:Well maybe they would choose it if they could, but the opportunity never presents itself?

I suppose it is just like communists living in non-communist countries.


Of course. Only a small minority wants dictatorship here, and democracy is deeply ingrained. It would take a major failure of the system to break it and create a large enough constituency for change.
Americans in government have sometimes favored right wing dictators, not because they favor dictatorship in principle but because the alternative (like anarchy) is perceived as worse.
#14807543
starman2003 wrote:Of course. Only a small minority wants dictatorship here, and democracy is deeply ingrained. It would take a major failure of the system to break it and create a large enough constituency for change.
Americans in government have sometimes favored right wing dictators, not because they favor dictatorship in principle but because the alternative (like anarchy) is perceived as worse.


Americans have openly supported right wing dictators becuase of profit. I guess you could say that they disliked the alternative more, as long as we are clear that the alternative is people exercising their sovereignty in such a way that US profits are threatened.
#14807556
Pants-of-dog wrote:Americans have openly supported right wing dictators becuase (sic) of profit.
QFT
The U.S. supports authoritarians because they do what we want and give us what we want. We suddenly want democracy only when their dictator doesn't do our bidding anymore. It's total hypocrisy, of course.

The real question is: if your nation became a fascist state, what are your options? Not everyone can just up and move. What percentage of a nations citizenry would really have no choice in the matter?
How many would remain to try fostering change and how many would just have to grit their teeth and suffer through it?
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt anybody here could answer these questions with anything more than speculation.

Here in America, so far, nearly everyone either supports it or is willing to grit their teeth.
#14807894
Pants-of-dog wrote:Americans have openly supported right wing dictators becuase of profit. I guess you could say that they disliked the alternative more, as long as we are clear that the alternative is people exercising their sovereignty in such a way that US profits are threatened.


It wasn't just profit but strategic concerns. The US didn't mind dictatorships if they were anti-communist. I don't think there was much profit in Pakistan under Yahya or Zia or Chile under Pinochet. Likewise, under Mubarak, Egypt was a basket case. Cairo drained US $, but the US was willing to support it because it broke with Russia and (equally important) made peace with Israel--a very important consideration indeed in view of AIPAC power.... :roll:
#14817861
starman2003 wrote:It wasn't just profit but strategic concerns. The US didn't mind dictatorships if they were anti-communist. I don't think there was much profit in Pakistan under Yahya or Zia or Chile under Pinochet. Likewise, under Mubarak, Egypt was a basket case. Cairo drained US $, but the US was willing to support it because it broke with Russia and (equally important) made peace with Israel--a very important consideration indeed in view of AIPAC power.... :roll:


Strategic concerns were also an issue.

Yes, there was profit under anti-communist dictators, despite what you think.
#14818037
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, there was profit under anti-communist dictators, despite what you think.


Of course there was; especially if you include monarchies like those in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the gulf. South Africa under apartheid may not have been a classic dictatorship but but it was hardly democratic. For some time, the US still supported it because of economic dividends. But in the case of poorer authoritarian nations such as Pakistan and Egypt, strategic and political considerations were foremost. The principal reason for backing Egypt, post '73, was to preserve its peace with Israel-always #1 in the halls of US government...
#14818042
Q: Would I live in a Fascist state?

A: No. I hate Fascists. I think they are the enemy of a free people and that anyone who supports fascism should be killed by any means possible and the state overthrown and destroyed. They are worse than Communists, and Liberals (barely).


And no, I'm not kidding.
#14818090
starman2003 wrote:Of course there was; especially if you include monarchies like those in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the gulf. South Africa under apartheid may not have been a classic dictatorship but but it was hardly democratic. For some time, the US still supported it because of economic dividends. But in the case of poorer authoritarian nations such as Pakistan and Egypt, strategic and political considerations were foremost. The principal reason for backing Egypt, post '73, was to preserve its peace with Israel-always #1 in the halls of US government...


So you now you seem to be contradicting your previous point.

Also, US support of Israel is for the purposes of having a local ally to help take Arab oil. It is still about profit.
#14818344
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you now you seem to be contradicting your previous point.


I didn't deny money was a motivation in some cases. But not all.

Also, US support of Israel is for the purposes of having a local ally to help take Arab oil. It is still about profit.


Israel never helped the US "take arab oil" in the 70 years it's been around. The US supports Israel because a lot of passionate and wealthy people--mainly but not entirely jewish--compel us to, because of the clout they have in government. Backing Israel is not in the best interest of the US; basically it's the work of traitors here who consider that nation #1 not ours.
#14818670
starman2003 wrote:I didn't deny money was a motivation in some cases. But not all.


I cannot think of a single example where US governments supported a right wing dictatorship,and did not make lots of money. But feel free to provide one.

Israel never helped the US "take arab oil" in the 70 years it's been around. The US supports Israel because a lot of passionate and wealthy people--mainly but not entirely jewish--compel us to, because of the clout they have in government. Backing Israel is not in the best interest of the US; basically it's the work of traitors here who consider that nation #1 not ours.


Oh, I see. The Arab states apparently do not have oil, or US companies are not trying to access it, or Israel does not provide a military base of operations in the area for the US. Sure. Right.
#14819054
Pants-of-dog wrote:I cannot think of a single example where US governments supported a right wing dictatorship,and did not make lots of money. But feel free to provide one.


Egypt and Pakistan. Neither is wealthy. The US has shelled out many billions to Egypt over the years, not because of economic importance--it's an overpopulated basket case--but mainly just to keep the country at peace with Israel.



Oh, I see. The Arab states apparently do not have oil, or US companies are not trying to access it,


Of course oil is important. It's noteworthy, though, that in 1973 the US, under intense pressure from Israel's supporters, airlifted weapons to Israel and was willing to pay the price of alienating arab oil producers, who embargoed oil to the US. Bottom line: the most important influence on US foreign policy is, all too often, not economics.


or Israel does not provide a military base of operations in the area for the US. Sure. Right.


:lol: Sure, right indeed. Look at the 1990-91 Gulf crisis. To contain and repel Saddam, the US operated out of Saudi bases; there are still US troops in the gulf but no US bases in Israel.
#14819086
starman2003 wrote:Egypt and Pakistan. Neither is wealthy. The US has shelled out many billions to Egypt over the years, not because of economic importance--it's an overpopulated basket case--but mainly just to keep the country at peace with Israel.


This does not contradict my claim at all.

Of course oil is important. It's noteworthy, though, that in 1973 the US, under intense pressure from Israel's supporters, airlifted weapons to Israel and was willing to pay the price of alienating arab oil producers, who embargoed oil to the US. Bottom line: the most important influence on US foreign policy is, all too often, not economics.


The US can and will alieante Arab oil producers as much as they want, because they can then seize the oil fields for themselves if the Arabs do not play ball. This is exactly what happened to Saddam Hussein.

:lol: Sure, right indeed. Look at the 1990-91 Gulf crisis. To contain and repel Saddam, the US operated out of Saudi bases; there are still US troops in the gulf but no US bases in Israel.


The fact that another country also does it magically means that the US and Israel are not military allies? That makes no sense.
#14819319
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not contradict my claim at all.


It shows economics isn't always the paramount consideration.


The US can and will alieante Arab oil producers as much as they want, because they can then seize the oil fields for themselves if the Arabs do not play ball.


Nonsense. The US didn't seize arab oil in 1973-74.

This is exactly what happened to Saddam Hussein.


The US crushed Saddam's army in '91 but didn't take his oil. The 2003 invasion was motivated by a desire to democratize Iraq in the naive belief democracy would spread throughout the region, making the arabs tamer hence Israel (#1 for the jewish neocons like wolfowitz) safer. See Walt and Mearsheimer The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Oil was not the prime consideration in 1991 or 2003. The US doesn't have Iraq's oil now.


The fact that another country also does it magically means that the US and Israel are not military allies? That makes no sense.


Israel is not a real ally but a client or benefactor of the US, due to its supporters here. The US and Israel never fought side by side in a war.
#14819332
Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do so many peoole in the US like right wing dictators, yet never choose that for the US?

Well, Godstud chooses to live under a military government with a monarchy. So it's not unheard of. While he's a Canadian, he waxes on endlessly about US politics, extols the virtues of the Democratic party in the US, but nevertheless chooses to live under a military government.

starman2003 wrote:Oil was not the prime consideration in 1991 or 2003.

I disagree. Hussein invaded Kuwait for its oil resources, and made no bones about it. He needed to pay of Iraq War debt. The US did not want Iraq in control of additional oil resources. Additionally, Iraq also invaded Saudi Arabia. The Battle of Khafji did occur, and it was the first major ground engagement. I think the events of 9/11 were about getting the US military out of Saudi Arabia, and the real reason for the war in 2003 was that the US would not leave Saudi Arabia militarily and leave Saddam Hussein in power. The neocon fantasy of a democratic Iraq has had long-standing popularity. Remember, the UK created the Faisal Hussein monarchy with a parliament. It is not the first time democracy was imposed on Iraq.

starman2003 wrote:The US doesn't have Iraq's oil now.

True, and that's why the US pulled out of Iraq. The Iraqi government gave concessions to China, but China isn't good at projecting military power. The US doesn't want ISIS in control of oil either.
#14819381
starman2003 wrote:It shows economics isn't always the paramount consideration.


Nope, not at all.

Nonsense. The US didn't seize arab oil in 1973-74.


I did not say that they did. But they did learn two things from that: that they should from then on (which they have), and that they will put Us economic interests above those of Israel.

The US crushed Saddam's army in '91 but didn't take his oil. The 2003 invasion was motivated by a desire to democratize Iraq in the naive belief democracy would spread throughout the region, making the arabs tamer hence Israel (#1 for the jewish neocons like wolfowitz) safer. See Walt and Mearsheimer The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Oil was not the prime consideration in 1991 or 2003. The US doesn't have Iraq's oil now.


The US attacked Hussein in 1991 because he was about to seize Saudi oil, and the US did seize Iraq oil in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/i ... index.html

    It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.
    Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
    From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

Israel is not a real ally but a client or benefactor of the US, due to its supporters here. The US and Israel never fought side by side in a war.


I have no idea why so many right wing authoritarian people want to always blame everything on the Jews.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]