Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nofnway
America "forces" democracy on other countries to promote its own self (not selfish, although by reading this thread not many would agree) interests. Some sort of democracy clearly favors American interests. Values, economics, and political structure as well as stability all play a part. It may be only my opinion that democracy affords the greatest number of people the greatest amount of freedom.
But asking " Why does america Force democracy on other countries?" seems like loading the question. The same as simply stating "America forces democracy on other countries. Why does it do that? " Though you haven't established the premise.
I read the article and I don't get "forcing democracy" from it. Encouraging...yes....Differences in approach?....surely. Were you truly wondering why? or did you already believe so and were attempting to justify that belief?
Either way you might consider these questions....I do constantly..
Why wouldn't The United States encourage the spread of democracy?
What peoples willingly submitted to communism?
Socialism and Democracy are ultimately about capitalism, Isn't the debate about who controls the capital?....
|
My question is: what makes you think America does not force democracy? What, for you, makes this a case of "encouragement" instead of forcing?
In his recent speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush pledged that the United States would embark on a decades-long commitment to bring democracy to the Middle East. He did not say we'd ask them if they want a democracy, or encourage a democracy. He is commited to bring democracy to them. The problem is that the Middle East lacks the conditions, such as a democratic political history, high standards of living, and high literacy rates, which stimulated democratic change in, for example, central Europe and East Asia. The belief that the United States can accelerate this process is based on the same fatal conceit that brought down the Soviet empire: namely, that governments, and especially foreign governments, can realistically dictate noble ends. Ronald Reagan understood this as well as anyone. President Bush's speech deliberately drew comparisons to President Reagan's June 1982 speech, in which Reagan predicted the imminent demise of Soviet communism because it failed to respect individual rights and to reward individual creativity. And we all know of Reagan's mistrust of government. Revealingly, the United States spent hundreds of millions of dollars on democracy programs in the Middle East during the 1990s with no noticeable impact. Instead, as the president declared, the success of freedom rests upon the willingness of free peoples to sacrifice. But the people of the Middle East, not the people of the United States, must make these sacrifices. Indeed, heavy-handed attempts to force democracy upon the region by military conquest will ultimately prove counter-productive toward those ends, as the events in Iraq are showing us every day. Global terrorism is UP since 9/11. Global terrorism is UP since the so-called victory over Iraq. This is the problem with the democracy we have been trying to plant. Osama would not have attacked had we not interfered with the Middle East. What he did was wrong, of course, but remember that it was not simply some "anti-american attack with no rhyme or reason". Sorry, I'm getting off subject.
Who's idea was it to spread democracy in the Middle East? Who invaded Iraq (based on lies) in order to remove the authoritarian government? Who is spending $200 billion+ to rebuild Iraq? Who uses the most oil? Who's been trying to spread democracy since the end of WW2? All signs point to "forced" instead of "encouraged".
(Thanks to Patrick Basham and Christopher Preble for some good ideas for this post, credit where due).