Cyprus-Forum.com

[miltiades]

Kikapu,
It is not accidental that many of those states which were once secular, in which democratic forces were trying to grow, had the misfortune of being crushed by political forces supported by the west. If you look at the nascent democratic, socialist and secular movements which arose in the middle east in the 1960s and 1970s were ALL crushed by anti-democratic, authoritarian, often military, governments supported by the west (and occasionally by the Soviet Union). In some cases fundamentalist Islamic states were supported from the outset eg Saudi Arabia, at other times fundementalist Islamic governments were the direct result of the massacres of democrats, socialists and trade unionists eg Iran. Turkey nearly fell into that last group and is still struggling with the twin legacy of military rule and Islamism.

What is your point Copperline ?
Are you not in agreement that countries depicting the star and crescent are on the whole undemocratic and have some of the highest literacy rates in the world.
Personal freedom is non existent and freedom of speech severely curtailed , in Turkey too.

[CopperLine]

The point is that these societies didn't become anti-democratic or fall under Islamic rule by accident or because they were always so. These societies also had democratic, secular and socialist forces which were deliberately crushed by forces actively supported by western (and sometimes Soviet) powers.

[zan]

Kikapu,
It is not accidental that many of those states which were once secular, in which democratic forces were trying to grow, had the misfortune of being crushed by political forces supported by the west. If you look at the nascent democratic, socialist and secular movements which arose in the middle east in the 1960s and 1970s were ALL crushed by anti-democratic, authoritarian, often military, governments supported by the west (and occasionally by the Soviet Union). In some cases fundamentalist Islamic states were supported from the outset eg Saudi Arabia, at other times fundementalist Islamic governments were the direct result of the massacres of democrats, socialists and trade unionists eg Iran. Turkey nearly fell into that last group and is still struggling with the twin legacy of military rule and Islamism.

What is your point Copperline ?
Are you not in agreement that countries depicting the star and crescent are on the whole undemocratic and have some of the highest literacy rates in the world.
Personal freedom is non existent and freedom of speech severely curtailed , in Turkey too.

UNITED NATIONS -- Today's youth are the best educated generation in history even though 130 million are still illiterate, according to a new U.N. report that urges greater investment to ensure universal primary schooling.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n15673746



It really is a small world....

[miltiades]

"Star & Crescent"

Why is it, that almost of all Muslim (a.k.a Islamic) countries whose flags have a Star & Crescent are anti True Democracy, anti Freedom of Speech, anti Free Press, anti Human Rights, Corrupt, Undeveloped and Poor, and mostly ruled by strong Military influence.?

You missed out ILLETERACY !!
Take Pakistan as an example , 46% illiterates , no wonder they have voted in a President who spent 10 years in prison for corruptions.
Let us however just list the LITTERACY RATES of some nations starting with Cyprus , remember these are literacy rates .
CYPRUS 97%
GREECE 91%
TURKEY 88.3%
Here you have it CYPRUS Way ahead.

Lets look at some other countries .
Saudi Arabia 78% - Iran 77% - 79.6% - Yemen ( females only ) 28.5%
Algeria 69.9% , ans so on and so on , the more illiterate the more undemocratic !!
Just take a look at a couple of Yemeni girls out and about , well not quite out but certainly about , remember than 71% of Yemeni women are illiterate !!

Hear are a few of the Miltiades girls on a night out....

The difference dickhead is that in the West such women are frowned upon ridiculed ,and in receipt of derisory comments from the media unlike the grotesque rather eerie looking illiterate Yemeni girls who have no option but to look ludicrous for failing to do so could mean death . How naive of you to compare them to the stupid Western , mostly lower class , women .
The West is not perfect but the difference here is that people like you prefer to be here rather than there.
You did make the statement about your new modern world old boy , I noticed that you are 50 soon , well mate I'm only 12 years ahead of you in age and about a million in common sense.
Tell us again about ENOSIS , Makarios and Tpap !!!

[zan]

Whats up MIlti.....You always do a runner when the going gets tuff.....Come back baby!!!!

[miltiades]

Since my last post was at 8.01 , how come you have deducted I have done a runner !!!

[zan]

Good you are back!!!



Published on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 by OneWorld.net
US Selling More Weapons to Undemocratic Regimes That Support 'War on Terror'
by Abid Aslam

The United States has ramped up arms sales to some of the world's most repressive and undemocratic regimes in a misguided attempt to bolster counter-terrorism efforts since the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil, says a new report from leading arms trade researchers.

The report, from the Arms Trade Resource Center at New York-based New School University's World Policy Institute, says increased weapons sales and grants have been used to reward countries that have either joined what the White House calls its ''war on terror'' or have backed the U.S. administration's military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President (George W.) Bush's pledge to 'end tyranny in our world' than the United States' role as the world's leading arms exporting nation. All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries.

The United States ranks top among the world's arms exporters and in developing countries, a majority of its arms are sold to regimes ''defined as undemocratic by our own State Department,'' says the study released Wednesday.

The study acknowledges that the increased weapons transfers are aimed at rewarding coalition partners and ensuring continued U.S. military access to overseas bases.

But in the long run, it adds, the strategy risks undermining--not enhancing--U.S. security.

''Arming undemocratic governments all too often helps to enhance their power, frequently fueling conflict or enabling human rights abuses in the process. These blows to the reputation of the United States are in turn impediments to winning the 'war of ideas' in the Muslim world and beyond, a critical element in drying up financial and political support for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda,'' the report says.

''In all too many cases, U.S. arms and military technology can end up in the hands of U.S. adversaries, as happened in the 1980s in Iraq and Panama, as well as with the right-wing fundamentalist 'freedom fighters' in Afghanistan, many of whom are now supporters of al-Qaeda,'' it adds.

''At a minimum, the time has come to impose greater scrutiny on U.S. arms transfers and military aid programs,'' the report concludes. ''The facile assumption that they are simply another tool in the foreign policy toolbox, to be used to win friends and intimidate adversaries as needed, must be challenged in this new era in U.S. security policy.''

The United States transfers more weapons and military services than any other country in the world, according to the report. Between 1992 and 2003, the last year for which complete data are available, it sold $177.5 billion in arms to foreign nations.

''In 2003 alone, the Pentagon and State Department delivered or licensed the delivery of $5.7 billion in weaponry to countries which can ill afford advanced weaponry--nations in the developing world saddled with debt and struggling with poverty,'' the study says.

''Despite having some of the world's strongest laws regulating the arms trade, almost half of these weapons went to countries plagued with ongoing conflict and governed by undemocratic regimes with poor human rights records,'' it adds. In 2003, for example, $2.7 billion in weaponry went to governments branded as ''undemocratic'' by the State Department.

U.S. programs are supplying arms to 18 of 25 countries embroiled in ''active conflicts,'' or warfare against domestic or foreign foes, the study says. These include Angola, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Israel, Pakistan, and the Philippines.

Additionally, U.S. arms transfers to Uzbekistan--where at least 169 anti-government demonstrators were killed last week--''exemplify the negative consequences of arming repressive regimes,'' it says.

Countries deemed undemocratic by the State Department that nevertheless rank among the largest recipients of U.S. military aid and sales include Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion in 2003), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), United Arab Emirates ($110 million), and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

The largest U.S. military aid program--known as Foreign Military Financing (FMF)--grew by 68 percent from 2001 to 2003, the latest full year for which data are available, rising from $3.5 billion to nearly $6.0 billion.

Under FMF, recipients get outright U.S. grants on condition they use the money to buy U.S. weapons systems. The foreign countries get nearly-free weapons (they incur the operating costs and additional expenses for parts and in some cases, training) and the money is churned back into the U.S. defense industry.

The biggest FMF increases have gone to countries engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have included Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan ($191 million), Pakistan ($224 million), and Bahrain ($90 million).

Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Uruguay are among two dozen countries that either became first-time FMF recipients or were allowed back into the program after long absences. In all, the number of countries receiving FMF aid increased from 48 to 71 over the past four years, the study says.

''Perhaps no single policy is more at odds with President (George W.) Bush's pledge to 'end tyranny in our world' than the United States' role as the world's leading arms exporting nation,'' it says. ''All too often, U.S. arms transfers end up fueling conflict, arming human rights abusers, or falling into the hands of U.S. adversaries.''

The World Policy Institute's veteran analysts make recommendations they say ''would further the Bush administration's counter-terrorism agenda much more effectively than the disastrous arms deals documented in this report.''

First, they urge the U.S. government to follow the Arms Export Control Act, which requires that U.S. arms transfers be used only for self-defense, internal security, and in United Nations sanctioned operations; the Foreign Assistance Act, which bars military aid and arms sales to countries with poor human rights records; and the Export Administration Act, which regulates the sale of items with both civilian and military uses.

Washington also should ratify an Organization of American States firearms convention that it helped draft, and it should cooperate with other governments to ratify an international arms trade treaty that would create legally binding arms controls and ensure that all governments control arms to the same basic standards, the authors say.

They further urge enactment of the Conventional Arms Threat Reduction Act. Proposed by Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, the measure would authorize the State Department to eliminate or secure surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional weapons.

Finally, the report recommends that the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies publish regular reports on the use of U.S. weaponry in ongoing conflicts and assess how arms transfers are affecting counter-terrorism operations.

Individuals and philanthropies including the Colombe Foundation, Deer Creek Foundation, Kligerman Foundation, Stewart R. Mott Fund, Ploughshares Fund, Proteus Fund, Rockefeller Brother Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, Samuel Rubin Foundation, Secure World Foundation, Strachan Donnelley Trust, and Town Creek Foundation funded the report.

Copyright © 2005 OneWorld.net

[miltiades]

The point is that these societies didn't become anti-democratic or fall under Islamic rule by accident or because they were always so. These societies also had democratic, secular and socialist forces which were deliberately crushed by forces actively supported by western (and sometimes Soviet) powers.

Once again Copperline you leave me stunned !! The West supported the Shah of Iran , now Iran is ruled by a bunch of Theocrats that deprive their people , as ALL MUSLIM nations do , of their fundamental liberties , one of them the choice of faith .
You are now inferring that these nations are depriving their people of their basic democratic rights because forces supported by Western powers deliberately crushed their democracies !!!! Im astounted that of all people you can make such a nonsensical assumption. Next you will be telling us that the "democracy " that existed in Iraq under Sadam was crushed by the West !!

[zan]

The UN is undemocratic
Africa » Gambia » Bakau
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The United Nations was founded in 1944 after World War II by the allied forces at a time when they were very much flush with their victory. The allied forces included USA, Great Britain, Russia, China, and France.

The UN, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is an undemocratic and unjust organization. The other two have particularly discriminatory policies and will not allow an African or Asian to head them. Similarly, the allied forces denied Germany, Japan, Africa and Asia from being part of the Security Council as they referred to them as defeated nations.

We all know that the General Assembly is a toothless bulldog as any decision made there can be overturned by the Security Council. The impotence of the General Assembly is reflected in its inability to bring about peace in the DR Congo, Somalia, Darfur, not to mention Iraq. In other words, the UN belongs to the USA and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Despite its pretence of being an independent UN agency, its policies are generally dictated by the US.

Indeed, how can the international community expect only US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Great Britain and France to have complete monoply over nuclear weapons and to hold the rest of the world to ransom? This is an unacceptable situation. How can the UN deny the rest of the world the opportunity to acquire nuclear knowledge just because Washington, Paris and London feel that this should not be in the hands of the coloured races of the world?

To insist on having Iran’s nuclear work monitored by the IAEA is unfair and there can be no world peace if the international community shows weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We disagree with the French leader’s belief that nuclear Iran could threaten the world when the US is using its veto to launch an attack on other nations without any justification. The UN Security Council has no right to stop or monitor other nations’ nuclear progress if they claim to be advocates for democracy. Every nation has the ultimate right to seek scientific knowledge acquired through education.

Author: Daily Observer

[zan]

Oh! Dear...Gone again without answering a single question...

Our Undemocratic Constitution
Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It)
Sanford Levinson

Add to Cart
ISBN13: 9780195365573
ISBN10: 0195365577
Paper, 272 pages
Mar 2008, In Stock
Price: $19.95 (01)
Shipping Details
Description
Reviews
Product Details
Author Information
Table of Contents
Description
Levinson argues that too many of our Constitution's provisions promote either unjust or ineffective government. Under the existing blueprint, we can neither rid ourselves of incompetent presidents nor assure continuity of government following catastrophic attacks. Less important, perhaps, but certainly problematic, is the appointment of Supreme Court judges for life. Adding insult to injury, the United States Constitution is the most difficult to amend or update of any constitution currently existing in the world today. Democratic debate leaves few stones unturned, but we tend to take our basic constitutional structures for granted. Levinson boldly challenges the American people to undertake a long overdue public discussion on how they might best reform this most hallowed document and construct a constitution adequate to our democratic values.

"Admirably gutsy and unfashionable."
--Michael Kinsley, The New York Times

"Bold, bracingly unromantic, and filled with illuminating insights. He accomplishes an unlikely feat, which is to make a really serious argument for a new constitutional convention, one that is founded squarely on democratic ideals."
--Cass R. Sunstein, The New Republic

"Everyone who cares about how our government works should read this thoughtful book."
--Washington Lawyer
Reviews
"Levinson believes that the Constitution is fundamentally undemocratic, and that a new constitutional convention is necessary to bring forward a better charter. His critical discussion of the founding document is bold, bracingly unromantic, and filled with illuminating insights. He accomplishes an unlikely feat, which is to make a really serious argument for a new constitutional convention, one that is founded squarely on democratic ideals. Levinson has valuably shown that parts of America's founding document are seriously flawed, and he has demonstrated that both representatives and citizens should treat the document not with "sanctimonious reverence" but as the revisable product of fallible human beings."--Cass R. Sunstein, The New Republic

"Clear and emphatic."--Washington Post Book World

"No one doubts that Al Gore got the most votes in 2000, but almost no one feels that this alone means that the presidency was stolen from him. One who does apparently feel that way is Sanford Levinson, [who is] calling for wholesale revision of our nation's founding document. This is admirably gutsy and unfashionable."--Michael Kinsley, The New York Times Book Review

"Admirably gutsy and unfashionable."--Michael Kinsley, The New York Times Book Review

"Everyone who cares about how our government works should read this thoughtful book."--Washington Lawyer

"Levinson locates the flaws of the system in America's founding document itself--the Constitution. His book is compelling because of [his] breadth of erudition and his willingness to propose solutions to the flaws he perceives."--John O. McGinnis, The Wall Street Journal , Northwestern University School of Law

"Sanford Levinson's irreverent tour reveals the subtle and not-so-subtle ways our Constitution blocks the responsible practice of democratic government. We ignore his critique at our peril."--Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School

"Sanford Levinson is the most imaginative, innovative and provocative constitutional scholar of our time. His new, sharp critique of the Constitution makes for bracing reading and forces us to confront what we really think of the Constitution. Every American needs to read this book and see if he or she agrees with Levinson that it is necessary to abandon the Framer's work and adopt a fundamentally new system of government. This work cannot be ignored."-Walter Dellinger, O'Melveny & Myers, Former Acting Solicitor General of the United States

"In an ideal world, every citizen would read this book and ponder the profound issues it raises about how to achieve democracy in our republic. As Socratic in spirit, as it is engaging in style, this is a marvelous guide to the pros and cons of democratic reform. Take up its invitation to look freshly at institutions you have taken for granted."-James Fishkin, Stanford University

"Few scholars are in the same league with Professor Sanford Levinson when it comes to raising provocative questions about the Constitution and conventional modes of interpreting its provisions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his analyses and prescriptions is largely beside the point; what matters is that he forces readers to think about dimensions of constitutional questions that ordinarily go unnoticed. In Our Undemocratic Constitution , Professor Levinson is at his thought-provoking best."--Robert P. George, Princeton University