6 ms·

> I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" I don't know how often it happ

> I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" I don't know how often it happens to stable governments, but generally I agree that destroying the country (through war) and imposing democracy - the essence of which is self-determination - is short-sighted and generally disasterous. > democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations Other forms of government are more easily controlled, speaking generally. In fact during the Cold War the U.S. replaced many democracies (Chile, Zaire/Congo, Iran, and others) with dictatorships because they were more easily controlled. In those three cases, leaders the U.S. disliked were elected, prompting the coups. > Ukraine I'm a little puzzled by this one. Clearly Ukraine's problems are due to Russia invading, conquering a major part of their country, and creating unending war in another part. > Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. I don't understand what this refers to. Taiwan's democracy is thriving; they are very prosperous. They just had another successful election and power changed hands again. Their main problem is the communist government in mainland China which puts a threatening shadow over everything and denies the Taiwanese normal relations with most of the world.

meric 11y ago
I'm not going to comment on the other points because either we agree or I can see how different perspective can see things in those ways, but with Ukraine, U.S. had spent 5 Billion dollars on civil activism, sponsored by various American oil companies, prior to the "coup" which ousted the elected, legitimate Russian-friendly Ukraine government. Without such surreptitious interference from the U.S., Ukraine would be in a more prosperous and stable situation today. Russia would not be able to say "You ousted a legitimate government that was protective towards the interests of Russians in Ukraine, that is why we're taking over Crimea because that is what the people want.". Here is the video direct from Victoria Nuland's mouth, speaking at a Chevron and ExxonMobil sponsored conference[1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 Ukraine, along with Libya and Iraq are prime examples to demonstrate when the Americans tell you your country should be liberated so it becomes democratic, you should probably plan to move out.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  "Russian-friendly Ukraine government" Calling Yanukovich Russian-friendly is extremely naive. Russian officials saw him is Russian-friendly. He thought he is Russian-friendly. He wasn't Russian-friendly if you consider what he did and what friends do.
- matthewbauer 11y ago
  Wasn't Yanukovych voted out? I don't think US was involved militarily or otherwise. EU powers could have been supporting pro-EU protests, however. Libya certainly had serious civil unrest before receiving US support. But it certainly has been going in the wrong direction since the fall of the Gaddafi government.
  - desdiv 11y ago
    The Ukrainian constitution requires a three-fourth majority vote to remove the president from office. The actual 2014 parliamentary vote only had 73% for his removal[0]. If you polled people in the west, at least 80% of them wouldn't be able to tell you that Yanukovych was removed illegally. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#constitutionality_of_the_removal_from_office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#constitution...
- Paradigma11 11y ago
  The 5 Billion were foreign aid from 1992 onward. It includes money to the peace corps, HIV prevention, help with chernobyl and tuberculosis... during many different goverments. I doubt the US goverment is capable enough to finance and plan a coup of an not yet known goverment 20+ years in the future.
  - meric 11y ago
    The U.S. propaganda machinery is very strong. Even as Joe Biden's son is now involved in Ukraine's gas companies[1] right after the coup, and along the 5 billion Victoria Nuland said U.S. spent on "democratic institutions", in front of Chevron and ExxonMobil flags, with half of Ukraine in tatters and gas rationings during bitter cold winters, people in the U.S. still think their government is a force for good in the country. Why help Ukraine with billions and not other countries that do not have gas/oil? [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27403003 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27403003

meric 11y ago

I'm not going to comment on the other points because either we agree or I can see how different perspective can see things in those ways, but with Ukraine, U.S. had spent 5 Billion dollars on civil activism, sponsored by various American oil companies, prior to the "coup" which ousted the elected, legitimate Russian-friendly Ukraine government. Without such surreptitious interference from the U.S., Ukraine would be in a more prosperous and stable situation today. Russia would not be able to say "You ousted a legitimate government that was protective towards the interests of Russians in Ukraine, that is why we're taking over Crimea because that is what the people want.". Here is the video direct from Victoria Nuland's mouth, speaking at a Chevron and ExxonMobil sponsored conference[1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448 Ukraine, along with Libya and Iraq are prime examples to demonstrate when the Americans tell you your country should be liberated so it becomes democratic, you should probably plan to move out.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
"Russian-friendly Ukraine government" Calling Yanukovich Russian-friendly is extremely naive. Russian officials saw him is Russian-friendly. He thought he is Russian-friendly. He wasn't Russian-friendly if you consider what he did and what friends do.
matthewbauer 11y ago
Wasn't Yanukovych voted out? I don't think US was involved militarily or otherwise. EU powers could have been supporting pro-EU protests, however. Libya certainly had serious civil unrest before receiving US support. But it certainly has been going in the wrong direction since the fall of the Gaddafi government.
- desdiv 11y ago
  The Ukrainian constitution requires a three-fourth majority vote to remove the president from office. The actual 2014 parliamentary vote only had 73% for his removal[0]. If you polled people in the west, at least 80% of them wouldn't be able to tell you that Yanukovych was removed illegally. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#constitutionality_of_the_removal_from_office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#constitution...
Paradigma11 11y ago
The 5 Billion were foreign aid from 1992 onward. It includes money to the peace corps, HIV prevention, help with chernobyl and tuberculosis... during many different goverments. I doubt the US goverment is capable enough to finance and plan a coup of an not yet known goverment 20+ years in the future.
- meric 11y ago
  The U.S. propaganda machinery is very strong. Even as Joe Biden's son is now involved in Ukraine's gas companies[1] right after the coup, and along the 5 billion Victoria Nuland said U.S. spent on "democratic institutions", in front of Chevron and ExxonMobil flags, with half of Ukraine in tatters and gas rationings during bitter cold winters, people in the U.S. still think their government is a force for good in the country. Why help Ukraine with billions and not other countries that do not have gas/oil? [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27403003 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27403003