Does John Negroponte’s role in state terrorism in Central America undermine the moral authority of the US?
471934
He's a thug like all the rest. Does it really surprise you that Bush would bring his career back to life?
515674
John Negroponte did not like him.
1046843
2000, when the Supreme Court decided that a fair and accurate recount must be stopped. Read the dissents in that case (see link below).\n\nAnd I think Mr.Danger's title is more accurate, though I prefer "Commander in Sheik". Captures the flavor better.\n\nYou've hit the real problem though. Hypocrisy. This administration would never tolerate another country doing what they claim is justified. \n\nRegardless of whether we like North Korea or Iran or not, if Germany or England or Brazil tried to tell the US that it could not engage in particular research or test weapons in international waters, the US would tell them to go bleep themselves. And then defend their rights with force.\n\nAnd every other country that has invaded another sovereign nation because they didn't like the way things were being handled has been denounced as tyrants. But it's alright for the US to do it?\n\nAnd the US denounces other countries (well, they used to last decade) for torturing people or violating civil rights. But the current administration can ignore not only its own Constitution but many international treaties (signed and ratified), because it feels like it?\n\nHypocrisy has always bothered me. And the current US administration is the best case for why in at least the last century.
703108
Perhaps you're thinking of the Monroe Doctrine, issued by Monroe in 1823. The Doctrine claimed the Western Hemisphere pretty much under the control of the U.S., and that we would defend other countries in it against intrustion by European powers. \n\nThere's also the "Good Neighbor" policy under FDR, which is similar.
414988
No.  The United States is to blame for what it is doing now, right, wrong or indifferent.  Each and every country is to blame for their own actions and inactions.\n\nA culture of warlords and tribes will never act like a culture of gentlemen farmers.  Xenophobia and religious intolerance can run deep and with much fervor.\n\nAs a word of historical reminding, according to the British, Americans invented and developed the very concept of gorilla warfare.  We did not invent it, but stoled it from the indigenous people of this continent.  Others have learned well.
462702
forget about it ,the USA image in the world is beyond repair,\nthey have been meddling and manipulating other countries pólitics for to long.\nthey have killed too many people.or helped other people to kill people,by selling them arms.\n\nThe agressive actions of America will continue and increase ,resulting in more and more fear and hate as time goes on.  many.many more people,in fact millions are going to be killed,if the plans of the illuminati are anything to go by\n\nso what ever propaganda they may come up with ,will contradict the actions and so will have no effect ,and nobody can do anything to improve the image.
90249
Mexico is not the true problem for US security. The problem that makes the US a target of terrorism is its policies imposed over other countries which clearly violate their sovereign rights. Outside the US, Americans are perceived as people who only care about themselves, their business and their money. A good lot of American policies imposed over other countries have been clearly a violation of the rights of democracy in those countries, just to favor some major US corporations. Bush should be spending more time trying to make peace than invading other countries and attacking other nations because their ways are different than ours.
683642
Definitely yes, Bushite regime is attacking the heart of America, with the so called War on terrorism (is War on Democracy) the future of the US seems to be very fearsome and risky, with the organised wars made, US in whole has made a big anti-US community worldwide, the respect that US held a few years back (One of the best Democracy) has now been ruined with the so called "war on terrorism", a state representing or showing faith in democracy should respect the same for others too, how can you justify that "One person did wrong so to punish him I may kill some innocent people who has nothing to do with that person ???" This is in no way democratic, killing of the civilians has brought the US a permanent black spot in the history where no-one if unbiased would justify the wars and the US decisions. Even the US people killed and injured in the same are not less than the people attacked, I always took US as one of the most civilised and democratic and an ideal country but now I think it would be difficult for me to classify US in either of these. Its almost same what Saddam did, He did and his people paid for it, Bush sounds somewhat same but diplomatic, SUBJECT is same, representation is different, so what, PEOPLE ARE KILLED AND IT DOES MATTER (MAY NE NOT TO U.S.) BUT TO THE CHILD WHOSE PARENTS  WERE KILLED, TO THE WIFE WHO IS WIDOWED, TO THE PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE KILLED, TO THE NATIONS WHOSE GENERATIONS ARE KILLED. MR. BUSH COULD YOU PLS EXPLAIN THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY, I THINK WE ARE UNDER A WRONG IMPRESSION OF WHAT DEMOCRACY IS? BECAUSE PEACE IS NOT SPREAD BY MEANS OF GUNS, INVASIONS AND ATTACKS, ITS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE NURTURED AND SOWN. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I CAN SEE IS - ONE PERSON WITH A GUN IS IN UNIFORM SO HE IS CALLED A MILITARY PERSONEL AND THE OTHER WITHOUT THE UNIFORM AND SO IS CALLED A MILITANT, BUT THE MOTIVES REMAIN SAME FOR BOTH. SORRY, BUT NEVER EXPECTED THIS FROM THE MOST CIVILIZED AND EDUCATED SOCIETY LIKE - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
750408
Yes, it is all those things.  And this is our government in collusion.  And most Americans are afraid of being uncaring if they say or think that we should secure the border so the terrorists stop walking across.   Think about it:  Most Americans cannot come to the point where they say we should secure our borders so that terrorists will stop walking in.  All they focus on is how mean it is to send poor people back to their country and how it is un-Christian to demand secure borders.  So, are we to understand that it is Christian-like to leave the border porous so terrorists can continue to flood in to put together dirty bombs to kill millions of Americans?  Is that what Christianity is all about?   You people - and you know who you are - cannot have it both ways even if you avoid the bad news.  It is still gonna happen and you people die as easily as the rest of us.  Stop being pathetic and think for yourself.\n\nNOTE TO ELPIBE:  READ THE QUESTION AGAIN.  MEXICO PROVIDES THE ENTRY POINT.  MEXICAN NATIONALS (TEENS AND YOUNG MEN) MAKE UP ALMOST ALL THE GANG HOMICIDES WHICH NUMBER IN THE HUNDREDS AND GROWING.
346907
Bush and his fellow neocons are avaricious, power-mad, and short-sighted. They lack the spiritual vision to realize that they are grossly abusing the awesome power they wield. Consumed by self-absorption and a compulsion to continue the morally repugnant policy of Manifest Destiny, they fail to realize that America's ways are not superior to the ways of the rest of the world. Sadly, America's rulers believe they are justified in using invasion, occupation and torture to impose "democracy, capitalism and Christianity" on other nations, just as their predecessors did with Native Americans. Amnesty International has given them a painful reminder of their immoral, illegal acts, and of the limitations of their power.
53825
No way. The G.W. Bush administration is commiting a crime. And that does not end in Iraq, it continues in Guantanamo Bay and with the continuation of the death penalty against its own citizens. Only hypocrites can believe that this is morally and justly correct.
49561
Yes, but I don't think it is due to a lack of religion or the devil walking in our midst. In fact it should not have anything to do with religion as there should be a seperation of church and state. Which is not to insinuate that there is anything wrong with religion except that our goverment attempts to limit the power of factions for domestic security. I could care less what people do in their private lives it doesn't carry over to the public arena. I don't agree with the motives to follow but the US could fall as our economy is a source of security. Since WWII we have been economically dominant yet, our economic superpower is waning as various economies around the world are becoming stronger and challenging America. America will become more desperate to try and keep its self secure on many fronts therefore becoming overextended.
169098
partly, yes. Cuba, as you know is a commie country who hates America (or at least Fidel Castro does). I think bush is too paranoid...
1099671
If you ask G W Bush, he'd say that means of opening a concentration camp offshore where people can be tortured at will, held indefinitely without charge and even (he had hoped) 'executed' (= murdered) after a travesty 'trial', is justified by the stated 'end' of scaring everyone witless of the US as it becomes an international bully without regard for human rights.  This will help America to achieve its stated aim of 'full spectrum dominance' and at last make the world realise that the US Government is not interested in democracy, international law or any moral absolutes with regard to the rest of the world.  Its only concern is naked self interest.\n\nHowever, in my view, the end almost never justifies the means where the 'means' is morally wrong.  If your Mum asks, 'Does my bum look big in this dress?' then I can excuse a 'little white lie'.\n\nThe 'means' being morally wrong is, of course, often a matter of opinion.  The US foreign aid to anti-AIDS programmes in sub-Saharan Africa for example.  The US government (which is supposedly not involved with religion) has refused to give aid to projects which do not pledge to preach 'abstinence' as the primary weapon in the fight against AIDS.  As a result, it is almost impossible for any work to be done in encouraging condom use in sex-workers.  The 'Christian Right' will claim this as a moral victory while condemning (in effect) many people to death.  Those Christians are - whatever else you might say about them and their beliefs - morally consistent.  However, I disagree that there is a moral problem here.  It's not that I agree that the end here justifies the means - but that I feel there is nothing to justify.
1104524
I believe the brainwashing the liberal idiots received was sponsored by the communists. My answer is neither, it's internationally organized by the enemies of our country.
435866
you've rephrased your question, so i'm just gonna repost my answer:\n\nconspiracy theories posit a centralized concentration of power that generally is simply untenable in most (though not all) cases. \nan appropriate analogy is the power disparity between a parent and a small child. having superior explicative resources, the grownup can and often does fabricate deceptive modes of understanding events (santa claus must have been here, we sent the dog to a farm where he can run around and play, etc). but these deceptions are almost always planned far in advance, and always involve a taciturn complicity on the part of the child.\nin the case of 9/11, conspiracy seems unlikely because of the suddenness and publicity of the event.\nis it possible that insidious shadow elements of the american government engineered the attacks of 9/11 in order to manufacture consent in a war and oil grab in the middle east? well--anything is possible, but this seems highly unlikely as it is a blatant violation of the principle of ockham's razor (the simplest explanation is generally correct). not only does it unnecessarily add factors by positing a near supernatural power concentration in the hidden nether regions of u.s. government, but it further assumes the complicity of huge networks throughout the middle east, including bin laden (all functioning preternaturally to maintain the shroud of secrecy). a much simpler (and therefore almost indubitably more accurate) description of events can be constructed by simply decentralizing the nodes of agency--the demands of an enormously diffuse industrialized society for large quantities of energy resources concentrated in the middle east has resulted in a need for a level of cooperation that is nigh upon impossible to sustain given the disparate ideologies of the millions of individuals engaged in the complex operation. mix in a large measure of volatile historical tension, and a destabilizing imbalance in resource distribution, then heat the situation with the complete failure of conventional warfare to develop traction, and terrorist tactics on a major level are a natural reaction--the first major bubble in a solution starting to boil. \n\nbesides, if there were an all-powerful secret society working deep behind the curtains, do you really think that the united potheads of the world are going to form a viable resistance?\n\nis everything about what happened on 9/11 transparent? no. but conspiracy theories are for people that can see some of the picture but just can't connect the dots. so they make up fantastic mythologies to connect them. \n\nby the way--lightning isn't an angry anthropomorphic god throwing bolts of electricity either.
616696
Americans have a duty, but nobody is.  Thomas Paine was exiled for less than people are being imprisoned for today.\n\n"Liberal media"?  What liberal media?  The only independent voices are internet sites (Mediamatters, Counterpunch, Daily Kos, et al) and a few magazines (Utne Reader, Mother Jones, New Internationalist, et al).  The "liberal media" is playing conductor on the express train to dictatorship.