How Democrats conduct Imperialism...

[Cieran_WI]

1) Supply the dictator of said middle east country with low grade weapons
2) Distinguish between state paid "loyalists" and non-state paid "rebellions"
3) Create an uprising between the rebellions and the loyalists
4) Trigger the rebellions to overthrow their dictator leader with the promise of freedom through democracy
5) Watch the dictator leader open fire on his own people in an attempt to control them
6) Assist the rebels by supplying them with military firepower for "humanitarion causes"

7a) If rebels win, proceed with democracy and obtain cheap oil in the process
7b) If dictator looks like he is winning, get the UN to authorise military assistance for the rebels by way of "humanitarion cause"

8) Overthrow / Kill evil dictator by bombing the shit out of him
9) Proceed with democracy and obtain cheap oil in the process

10) Help to put new leader in power through a democratic voting system and gain new alliances who will continue to supply cheap oil


The West 1, The Middle East 0

[joshcryer]

1. That's how Chavez and Castro think it's going anyway.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[silver10]

3. I agree, but how is that different than Republicans?

[Cieran_WI]

4. See: Iraq

Republicans aren't nearly as neat and tidy when conquering a nation.

[joshcryer]

6. I assure you if that's what happens it'll be the first time in history...

...that a covert ops actually resulted in actual democracy.

You cannot name one instance where that was the case.

[robdogbucky]

8. Never stops them from claiming it/trying it though does it? n/t

[silver10]

7. I have to disagree sir or ma'am in this respect - War is never neat and tidy!

It is ugly and bloody and horrible.

[Taitertots]

5. You got 9 wrong

9) Proceed with privatization of resource wealth and obtain cheap oil in the process.
10) Prop up shame democracy, where they never get to vote to stop outside exploitation.

[robdogbucky]

9. You mean like in the middle east?

why bother with the sham democracy part?

Just prop up a corrupt monarchy or loyal former business partner, or corrupt military leader, or former torturer on our behalf, or former oil company rep in said country? And claim elections cannot be risked due to security concerns about internal insurgents, etc., etc., etc.

Sounds familiar.



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Taitertots]

11. A sham democracy will pacify the masses

All the people who they could vote for are loyal former business partners, former torturers, oil company toadies, and wanna be monarchs. The sham is that no matter who they pick, the system will protect private resource exploitation.

Edit: Yes it is a shame and a sham

[robdogbucky]

14. No shit, it's a shame and a sham n/t

[Taitertots]

15. I need to preread posts and stop trusting spell check

[CommonSensePLZ]

10. So... We should tell the Libyan people to give up?

And just accept the having the Gaddafi family rule over them as their dynasty?

If what the UN is doing now is wrong, what the hell was it created for? I agree though that there are people who are NOT being honest with their intentions of intervention, but I do think it's the better thing to do.

[Adsos Letter]

12. "Supply the dictator of said middle east country with low grade weapons"

I thought he had been supplied by Soviets/Russia/Eastern Bloc nations?

[swilton]

13. That about sums it up!