I had to get this off quickly…(gotta’ get to work!)
1)I hate to put a damper on the President’s Party…but can we as a Country really “spread” Democracy, especailly to people and countries with a dubious, at best, definition of “freedom”?
3)Some people talk about “our” form of Democracy and “their” form of Democracy in Political discussions; is “Democracy Democracy” and “Freedom Freedom” despite the context?
Fire away!
Mufasa
Yup. Just examine history.
e.g. Japan’s history. Warlords, samurrai’s, the emperor (who was nearly worshipped), WWII, blossoming of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, to finally democratic nation and economic powerhouse.
I personally think it is wrong and extremely arrogant to think it is our duty to make the world think and act like us. Hell, we don’t even have a common ground as far as ideology…yet we are going to force others into democracy?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally think it is wrong and extremely arrogant to think it is our duty to make the world think and act like us. Hell, we don’t even have a common ground as far as ideology…yet we are going to force others into democracy? [/quote]
Instead of using your own opinion to make this argument - why not ask the Afgans, or the Japanese, or in a few weeks, you could ask the Iraqis. Ask most of the former Eastern bloc countires if Democracy is just an Ideology forced on unsuspecting boobs by an arrogant United States.
Resurrect the Founding Fathers.
Have them take a look at the world today.
I’ll bet they would be surprised, shocked, and proud.
If given a chance, freedom will ALWAYS win.
JeffR
P.S. We aren’t imposing our system of government on Iraq/Afghanistan.
Ooooo…Japan…
Baaaad, example!
We “spread democracy” by:
Litterally burning out 90% of it’s cities with nightime, low-level, B-29 incendiary bombing, sometimes 300 bombers per sortie.
Hitting them with 2 atomic weapons that literally demolished two cities with only two weapons, AND leading them to believe that we had a stockpile.
Setting up a police state after the War that lasted 5-10 years.
Democracy “spread”…but only after almost obliterating a society and “replacing” it…
Mufasa
Geez…
Think about what it would take to “spread democracy” in the Hell Hole of the Middle East…
Mufasa
Not officially, no. I don’t believe in the evangelism of democracy.
Democracy requires an awful lot to be compatible with the society it serves.
That being said, when the US goes to war and annhiliates the current governing power, it is incumbent on the US to leave, in its wake, the best form of government available.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ooooo…Japan…
Baaaad, example!
We “spread democracy” by:
Litterally burning out 90% of it’s cities with nightime, low-level, B-29 incendiary bombing, sometimes 300 bombers per sortie.
Hitting them with 2 atomic weapons that literally demolished two cities with only two weapons, AND leading them to believe that we had a stockpile.
Setting up a police state after the War that lasted 5-10 years.
Democracy “spread”…but only after almost obliterating a society and “replacing” it…
Mufasa[/quote]
The attacks that occured during WWII really don’t have much to do with us spreading democracy. That wasn’t our intent when we dropped the bombs. We wanted to end the war, and we did.
The evolution that occured during the reconstruction of Japan, is the fruit of allowing democracy a foot hold.
To destroy an assailant is not equal to spreading democracy.
Had we crushed the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and left, or If we were to leave upon the defeat of Iraq, the resulting power vacuum would produce far more bloodshed than we’ve seen thusfar.
To allow democracy to gain a foothold by holding free and open elections is just what we do. How much worse would it be if we allowed Iraq and other countries to return to dictator rule? Despite what you read in the NYT, or hear on the news we have made more friends than enemies in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.
As someone who voted against Bush and is anti-iraq-war I’d really hate to chime in on his side but:
When you say that we are “forcing our ideology upon them” you are making a bad assumption.
If by “them” you mean the Iraqi population then the assumption in your statement is that they chose their previous form of government and we took it upon ourselves to change the decision for them. However this is the exact opposite of what happened. They were not given a choice and now we are giving them a choice.
The assumption I’m making of course is that we truely are installing a democratic government in Iraq and not just another dictatorship
[quote]StrongrThanDeth wrote:
As someone who voted against Bush and is anti-iraq-war I’d really hate to chime in on his side but:
When you say that we are “forcing our ideology upon them” you are making a bad assumption.
If by “them” you mean the Iraqi population then the assumption in your statement is that they chose their previous form of government and we took it upon ourselves to change the decision for them. However this is the exact opposite of what happened. They were not given a choice and now we are giving them a choice.
The assumption I’m making of course is that we truely are installing a democratic government in Iraq and not just another dictatorship[/quote]
You are also assuming that, even if power were in the hands of the people, that they would choose your idea of democracy. Our soldiers are being killed in Iraq by the many who do not agree with our actions. The argument against this is that many of those fighting are not even from that area…but I doubt we will truly have any concept of who wants what in that part of the world for quite some time. I don’t consider these “elections” as anything more than media hype at this point. It will take YEARS before there is any truly established form of government in that country that isn’t equal to a sock puppet.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are also assuming that, even if power were in the hands of the people, that they would choose your idea of democracy. Our soldiers are being killed in Iraq by the many who do not agree with our actions. The argument against this is that many of those fighting are not even from that area…but I doubt we will truly have any concept of who wants what in that part of the world for quite some time. I don’t consider these “elections” as anything more than media hype at this point. It will take YEARS before there is any truly established form of government in that country that isn’t equal to a sock puppet.[/quote]
So what to do then, ProfX? Whether you agree with the war, or not, is irrelevant at this point.
No one, not even Bush is saying that the upcoming elections will be the fix. It will take time for the Iraqis to form a credible governmental system, but what we are doing now is probably the best choice.
Ultimately, whatever happens in Iraq will be up to the people. If they get a taste of fredom and like it, there will be a democracy. If they continue to desire to be led by fear and intimidation, all of our efforts will be wasted. I think it is imperative for us to give democracy the incubation period it needs to grow before throwing in the towel as John Kerry would have done (“I’ll have us out of Iraq in 6 months”).
rainjack:
I don’t disagree with your point that our primary purpose for Fire Bombing Japan was to end the War and to prevent a long and bloodly land campaign…
However…Democracy came AFTER the complete annihilation of an Imperialistic, Totalitarian system…
I just don’t think that one can separate such a profound change in a society from the system that is then allowed to fill the void…
Mufasa
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think it is imperative for us to give democracy the incubation period it needs to grow before throwing in the towel as John Kerry would have done (“I’ll have us out of Iraq in 6 months”). [/quote]
When that incubation period requires us to give up the lives of the soldiers that pledge to uphold our constitution, I think it is imperitive that we reconsider our role there. The ONLY reason you see Bush’s approach as feasible is because Bush said it. Us maintaining our level of occupation for years as they sort things out makes little sense. All of this so that no one has to admit that our approach may have been a little hasty and our reasons for going in were faulted? Pride?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
When that incubation period requires us to give up the lives of the soldiers that pledge to uphold our constitution, I think it is imperitive that we reconsider our role there. The ONLY reason you see Bush’s approach as feasible is because Bush said it. Us maintaining our level of occupation for years as they sort things out makes little sense. All of this so that no one has to admit that our approach may have been a little hasty and our reasons for going in were faulted? Pride?[/quote]
Like I said, rather you agree with the war or not, something will fill the power vacuum that was created when Sadaam’s regime was toppled. Were we to fold up our tents and go home now, then we surely would have lost american lives in vain.
I don’t think the re-building of Iraq has much to do with pride as you seem to think. It’s what we’ve done since WWI. Most specifically in WWII and Korea, but we have the better part of a century’s track record of rebuilding that which we’ve had a hand in destroying.
I think our role there is quite simple really. Carrying out that role effectively has been a problem especially given the PC way we are expected to conduct ourselves.
You seem to think the effort is hopeless. I don’t. Democracy has flourished almost everywwhere it has been given a chance to take root - the kudzu of governmental structures. It will work in Iraq. It is working already in Afghanistan.
Of course it can.
We are unrivaled in the world in terms of Economic and Military power. No other country has the ability to do so.
Thankfully we are benevolent with our power. Many other great powers have not been. It is in our own best interest to see that the world is free and economically healthy. Free people with a growing standard of living do not make senseless war.
As to the Japan example, it is an excellent analogy. Japan was extremely militaristic and subscribed to a fantasy idealogy as perverse as any in modern times. Total destruction of that empire was both warranted and required to end the madness. After some of the attrocities committed by the Japanese of the period, on enemy and innocent alike, it seems like what they recieved was appropriate.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Like I said, rather you agree with the war or not, something will fill the power vacuum that was created when Sadaam’s regime was toppled. Were we to fold up our tents and go home now, then we surely would have lost american lives in vain.
[/quote]
So we remain and lose more lives just to justify the lives lost by going in under exaggerated pretense in the first place? That makes sense. I am sure the wives and children of these soldiers who are still alive would like their family members safe and back home.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
So we remain and lose more lives just to justify the lives lost by going in under exaggerated pretense in the first place? That makes sense. I am sure the wives and children of these soldiers who are still alive would like their family members safe and back home. [/quote]
Evidently living in the past is your strong suit. There’s nothing we can do about the lives lost in a war that you and a small minority of americans feel was unjust.
I hate to break it to you Prof, but just because you think it’s true does not make it so.
You are wrong, and history will prove it.
How is it that a living soldier holds more value in your maind than one who gave the ultimate sacrifice?
[quote]hedo wrote:
We are unrivaled in the world in terms of Economic and Military power. No other country has the ability to do so.
Thankfully we are benevolent with our power. Many other great powers have not been. It is in our own best interest to see that the world is free and economically healthy. Free people with a growing standard of living do not make senseless war.
As to the Japan example, it is an excellent analogy. Japan was extremely militaristic and subscribed to a fantasy idealogy as perverse as any in modern times. Total destruction of that empire was both warranted and required to end the madness. After some of the attrocities committed by the Japanese of the period, on enemy and innocent alike, it seems like what they recieved was appropriate.[/quote]
This is exactly the kind of thinking that scares me - that we are somehow God’s agents on Earth and have a mandate to do what it takes to convert everyone to our way of life.
It scares me not only because it is egomaniacal, but because, most of all, because it is hypocritical.
Even if we were right in doing so, and it was the best investment we could make do you really think spreading Democracy to the whole world is a work that will ever end? And even if it were, are we picking the best targets and using the most effective strategy?
Each country is a different case and these are very different times from WWII.
I don’t think we can extrapolate the good results we had in some countries to the present situation. Especially because the key factor when we had good results is that we had the rest of the World on our side.
And I don’t see you talk about the huge failures - Vietnam and North Korea…
Finally, saying “It is in our own best interest to see that the world is free and economically healthy” is plain simply deluded.
First, because that will never happen, at least not in our lifetime
Second because if it did we’d go down like a turd - we have less than 10% of the World’s population and possibly some of the highest salaries in the World… Which US company could compete? Not even Microsoft would survive…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
How is it that a living soldier holds more value in your maind than one who gave the ultimate sacrifice?[/quote]
How is it all of their lives aren’t equal in YOUR mind?