Willravel

Are you trying to get banned? That was simply rude and insulting. Please, this discussion is about America and the spread of democracy. I implore you, let's keep this civil. This communitry is based on respect.

Do you have a response to anyone's thoughts on the subject?

matthew330

it wasn't funny, not even a little bit?

wow, i was rude AND insulting......hell, at least i did both in three words. BTW..how was Manx's not? Please, you want this discussion to stay about America and the spread of democracy, quit provoking me, unless of course your trying to get me banned. Which couldn't be the case, because this community is all about respect right?

alansmithee

It just hit me: many people who's opinions, based on their posts on this board, would be identified as liberal/democrat are now trying to make arguements AGAINST democracy. The very people who dislike Bush because of his supposed undemocratic policies. Isn't he always compared to Hitler/Mussollini/facism in general? Do liberals/dems hate Bush so much that no matter what he supports, they immediately have to take the opposite side? He has also came out against AIDS, what's next, a thread supporting HIV? And now when he states his support for democratic principles, and tries (not even overtly in the case of Russia) to help ensure that people across the world will be able to choose their government, you instantly have to take the other side. Has hatred of Bush blinded people to any objective thought whatsoever?

chickentribs

I think many people are afraid that Bush's sudden interest in Russia and the Democratic Process over there seems a thinly vailed excuse to go over and break off the diplomatic talks Russia has been leading with Iran. Fans of democracy see it cheapening the ideal when it gets used like a Trojan Horse.

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

alansmithee

That's a fair enough argument, but that's not what's being put forth in the thread. In the thread, people aren't saying Bush is using democratic principles for political leverage, they are arguing against democracy.

chickentribs

Yeah, the general idea being that the US wants to establish "colonies", especially in the Middle East which I don't agree with. To many people get involved as you push down to local gov't levels and you loose any meaningful control. We are forced to move forward in Iraq if for no other reason than to salvage our moral high ground in the eyes of the world.

My opinion is that historically we have preferred autocratic rule to do our bidding in the middle east. Poor country, single ruler with ego and the want of weapons. We can stock his military for him and in return we have indirect clout to help ensure our share of oil. Until they inevitably get tired of infidels holding purse strings over them.

If nothing else I have to give the Saudi's credit where it is due. They know you leave the dance with the one ya came! 30 years later and we still act like newlyweds!

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

boatin

I would have said people are against forcing democracy. The idea would be that the ends do not justify the means. If Bush is forcing democracy, than that is a bad thing.

Democracy is a good thing, and I would be thrilled to see it spread the world over. But getting into this war with a bad premise, no plan, and great PR throughout doesn't fill me with confidence.

Intentions matter.


And for you to read that people are argueing AGAINST democracy is proof indeed that words don't mean the same thing to different peopole. That conclusion is just wrong, and if it were pointed at me (which I don't think it is) I would be sincerely insulted.

I've been called unpatriotic enough times since the start of this war not to take offense at related thoughts.

boatin

and please: no one can get you banned. our own behavior either does that or doesn't. no one is to blame but ourselves for what we each write.

Willravel

I was provoking you to stay on subject, as opposed to you who are prevoking a fight. If you get banned, it will be no one's fault but your own.

America isn't a democracy, so it's moot. "We" are against people using the government towards selfish ends. We are against killing of innocent people, and the needless endangerment of our friends and family who choose to serve our country in the armed forces. The mistake is automaticlly asuming that democracy is the right government for Iraq right now. In 50 years, it may be perfect for them, but we simply don't know. All I know is that America decided that Iraq would be a democracy.

Bush is anti-abortion, and I agree with him whole heartedly on that. Therefore, I do not automatically take the opposite side.

I think that a true democracy can work really well. Canada is doing alright.

alansmithee

If America isn't a "true democracy", then neither is Canada. Both would be termed republics, more accurately. But the thread is about 'forcing democracy" not forcing republics. In common usage, democracy is usually used to term any government where the people have a say in either who represents them or what laws are put into place. In that sense, both America and Canada are democracies.

And I really don't understand people saying that X country isn't ready for democracy. Are people in Iraq not smart enough to rule themselves? Or does the Iraqi disposition somehow lead itself to domination? Again, people are essentially saying that it's not always best for a country to have self-rule.

Willravel

Inteligence is only one factor in the developmental process of a country. With America and Canada, we have countries that revolted themselves and implimented democracy themselves. Like I said before "Today, 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 process from autocratic past to democractic future that we have seen in many countries is a very delacite one. In trying to build a democratic Middle East, the president and his neoconservative advisers ignore the one of the most basic principles of human existence: people don't like being bossed around. They particularly don't like being bossed around by foreigners.

In common use? A democracy is a democracy. It is not some term with a flexable meaning.

jorgelito

It's not that the people in Iraq aren't smart enough, I think it has more to do with they need time to "learn and develop" institutions conducive to democracy. You can't just give them instant democracy. I think alot of them are shell-shocked cause they aren't used to freedom and being allowed to think for themselves. Just give them some time and "gentle guidance" and I think they'll be alright (oversimplification, but to show point).

alansmithee

When did Canada revolt? Didn't GB just give them their independence?

I would disagree heavily with that statement. Democracy can refer to the principles of self-government, or the more textbook definition-a government ran directly by the people. If you use the second definition, the only democracy ever was in ancient Greece-and I would argue against that form of democracy simply because it places too much burden upon the citizens. (and honestly I can argue against any form of democracy, but that's not the issue)

Manx

It seemed to be a big issue for you just 3 posts ago.

Willravel

One exemption. One could argue that Canada was on the United State's coat tails on that one. The point was that democracy was not introduced to them by an outside force. They decided on the change when it was necessary. No one invaded them and removed their government from power, then made them a democracy. True change comes from within, not from without.

matthew330

Willravel, you are not a mod, quite pretending like you are. With that, let this worthless convo continue...

Willravel

While I am not a moderator (nor do I wish to be, a little too much responsibility), I am free to point out when you are acting in an innapropriate manner. If I broke rules and was deliberatly rude to people, it would only be fair for someone to call me on it. While in other boards it might be excusable to treat people with disrespect, TFP has higher standards of behavior. It is these standards that make this the great community it is.

I think the issue with this is not democracy itself, but whether it is truely forced or if it is just encouraged. While I have cited the Iraqi war as an example, it is not the only source on this subject. Maybe Japan or Germany should be brought up in this. These are two countries that are functioning well. I'd be curious of the question being asked in the frame of these examples.

Mojo_PeiPei

Sometimes a little encouragement is all you need to get going in the right direction. I think that a swift or hard kick in the ass constitutes as encouragement.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

KMA-628

Good point.

I would think those "Democracies" were pretty forced. Where does Italy fall? Great Britain (they were a monarchy well after we established out gov't--do you think we inspired some change there as well?)? Mexico? etc., etc.

They all seem to much better off for it.

alansmithee

I would like to give my personal thanks for yet another of your constructive, well-thought out posts. Keep up the good work!

The issue wasn't my personal opinion, but people who complain about Bush's supposed anti-democratic actions and then turn around and argue against democracy when Bush comes out in favor of it.

Mojo_PeiPei

What has Bush done that is so un-democratic again?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

Somehow Bush doesn't seem to fit squarely into this. America has been in the buisness of spreading democracy since the end of WW2. Bush was still in college when this hit stride. That being said, I know that he is involved with the process now. It's just that Bush simply can't be blamed (if someone must) for the direction this is heading in.

If you want to know about the roots of this, I think that the actions of Russia and America following WW2 would make for good studying. The spread of communism from the 60s through the late 80s (and even today) mirrors the spreading of democracy coming from America from then through now. The reasoning is hiddin somewhere in there.

Manx

So the issue was ... other people's opinions ... and not your opinion.

Naturally.

---------------

Since we're all defining "democracy" as whatever we personally feel it is, it is quite easy for me to "prove" that Bush is anti-democracy. He's lobbied for discrimination against gays - this is anti-democracy. He's lobbied for a useless social security reform - this is anti-democracy. He's started a useless war - this is anti-democracy. He's lobbied for and implemented increased surveilance of American citizens - this is anti-democracy. He's defended business at the expense of the environment - this is anti-democracy. He is the epitome of how cronyism has destroyed any remote semblance of democracy in the U.S. He's manipulated political discourse to polarize it to such a degree that when he says "democracy" 50%+ of the people ACTUALLY think he means democracy.

I could easily go on.

So, if we're not going to agree, or even begin to discuss, what democracy is and whether Bush is doing anything with it internationally, not a single one of you can demonstrate that Bush, and therefore American gov't, is not categorically in opposition to it.

We might as well just start making up words and arguing about what they mean.

jorgelito

Germany and Japan are interesting examples:
A large part of their success lay in the fact that we continued to occupy them to help guide their fledgling democracies and contributed to building their political institutions. We basically baby sat them until they were able to stand on their own. Plus, I believe they had less difficulty with insurgencies.

I believe Iraq would be better off and would have had an easier time if we had 500,000 peace keepers and administrators helping them along instead of this half-assed effort.

The main difference is that at least Japan and Germany (in general) had stability whereas Iraq is still kind of chaotic.

Maybe a Marshall Plan for Iraq (and Afghanistan while we're at it)?

Mojo_PeiPei

Actually Manx I disagree with just about all of your points made. Thing is, love it or hate Bush is doing things by the books. War in Iraq: a war that the majority of Americans backed (read: 51+%, number was actually higher), a war that got approval by the congress elected by the people... now on the basis that he acted in good faith, how was that undemocratic?

Gay Marriage. Publically the MAJORITY of Americans are against it, more are for civil unions but I can't say off the top of my head if they constitute a 51+%, not withstanding, legislation was put forth into congress and it got voted down by the representatives of the people. Now you could maybe argue that the congress wasn't being democratic by truly representing the majority of the population who is against gay MARRIAGE, but don't put that on Bush. Also I can't be sure of this, but I don't think Bush has taken anything further away from homosexuals, granted he isn't trying to help them any.

I don't see how SS reform is anti democratic one way or the other, hell I don't even know how democracy would factor into this issue. Just as an aside, because you don't agree with his policies doesn't make it anti-democratic.

To the point though, Bush has done everything by the books, as laid out by our constitution. He puts forth legislation to the congress they vote it into law, he signs it. I think you are misplacing your blame here.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

Perfect. That's exactly what I was thinking. Japan and Germany were totally united during WW2 (I mean germany was united, and Japan was united). They were not countries where the people were at odds with the government. When they lost they were occupied by huge amounts of troops from many different countries. Before WW2, Japan knew stability, and before WW1 and in the breif time before WW2 Germany knew stability. Iraq simply is not this way. Saddam was hated by many Iraqi peoples (in other words they learned not to trust their government).

Iraq will only succede with the combined help of many many nations. If we were to get support from the UN or some major nations like Russia, Germany, France, or Italy, it would be more likely that they'd come out of it a strong democracy. Also location must be taken to mind. Germany was a part of Europe, surrounded by budding democracies. Iraq is surrounded by Iran (Islamic Republic), Kuwait (nominal constitutional monarchy), Saudi Arabia (monarchy), Jordan (constitutional monarchy), Syria (republic under military regime since March 1963), and Turkey (the only democracy). Just something to think about.

Manx

That's quite impossible. You can only disagree with one of them - that being my definition of democracy - as the rest of my post is based on that definition.

Since my definition of democracy is essentially that which is good for the people (not simply the majority), Bush has been entirely opposed to it.

(As an aside, the majority of American's did not support the war without the blessing of the UN. Without that blessing, the number was somewhere around 28% in support. But that's a discussion that has been rehashed countless times to no avail.)

Janey

It was an evolution versus a revolution. We did rebel against irresponsible government, which is how our "Family Compact' & 'Chateau Clique' were brought down, but then again it was less of a guns and swords and more pens and laws sort of thing. Unless of course you count the 1837 rebellions: martial law in Montreal, race riots in Niagara Falls, Mackenzie's abortive march up Yonge Street in Toronto and the skirmish at Montgomery's Tavern, and Ducombes musturing in Hamilton and the battle of Sainte-Eustache...

It all continued in 1838 too...

Yakk

Unfortunetally, I find your particular style annoying to read. Sentances run on into rambling phrases, and concepts aren't broken apart. I don't read verbally, so the lack of verbal effect from capitalization doesn't matter -- capitalization provides structure that makes parsing easier for me.

I don't like having to work at just reading the words, it gets in the way of understanding the meaning behind the words.

Good day.

The problem is that America's military adventures look, from the outside, to be an attempt to ensure the return-on-investment of the US military and on the industry that supports the US military.

Some of them may be argueing in favour of letting people self-determine their own destinies, and at the very least don't hold a gun to their heads and say "make up your own mind".

This thread is about forcing democracy on people.

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Republic, thank you very much.

There are differences. In practice, I would put forward that the powers and limitations of the state (and it's head) are limited as much by tradition in Canada as they are by the rules of law.

Actually, democracy was given to and/or grew in Canada. There where revolts, but no "successful" ones.

Those where pretty long coat tales then! A gap of about 100 years exists between the US's revolts against crown rule and the British North America act. Another 125 years passed before Canada reincorperated itself as an independant nation (until 1982, Canada's existance and fundamental law was an act of British parliament. In 1982, Canada's existance and fundamental law became an act of Canadian parliament.)

GB was a constitutional monarchy before the US revolted. The lack of representation in the British parliament was, as far as I am aware, one of the core complaints of the American people.

"Taxation without representation".

GB is still a constitutional monarchy.

Part of that was the victory not only in the battle field, but in the battle of ideas.

German fascist docterine was discredited. The Japanese emperor claimed he was not divine.

Both nations where being run by cults of personalities. The personality was dead and defeated, and the new ideas where more interesting.

Assuming GWB is a saint, GWB is a saint -- I'll grant you that. Assuming false, I'll fly to the moon.

The problem is, GWB stated as president things that where not true, and convinced the nation to go to war on the basis of these "facts".

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

stevo

I think it comes down to whether you believe a democratic-type government is the best type of government for all people and whether you believe that most people want to rule themselves through a democratic governement. If you do, then you probably agree with bush, if you don't, then you probably have a problem with him.

roachboy

that only works if you make some seperation between the principles that bush throws about and the actual type of pseudo-democratic regime he presides over in the states. i dont see how this split would work. it seems somewhere between naieve and disengenuous.

yakk:

if i wrote for you i would be concerned about your various problems with the lack of caps.
but as it stands, i dont.
so i am not.

i am not sure that you want to start playing the game of formal criticism of how arguments are structured with me, however...it would be really easy to go line by line through your posts above and leave nothing standing at the conceptual level.
it seems about par for the course that you would couple an expression fo aesthetic displeasure (and nothing more) with a series of arbitrary assertions about content.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

What principles might you be speaking of?
Are you suggesting that what bush says and does regarding foreign policy is contrary to what freedom loving americans believe?

It seems to me that if american pseudo-democracy is good enough for me it is good enough for anyone else.

Suave

You all speak of dictatorships as evil, which is completely untrue. A government is only as good or bad as the person in charge. It is hence possible to have a fantastically wonderful dictatorship, or a completely horrific democracy. "Democracy", through the inclusion of the majority of the populace, limits its own ability to be greatly evil (assuming a widely-shared definition of evil), but at the same time limits its own ability to be as good (same assumption) as a dictatorship has the possibility of being. We just happen to have had multiple runs of some very nasty dictators.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Janey

the problem with dictatorships is that hegemony tends to lie in the same hands for a long time. It perpetuates itself and unless you have benevolence at the top, your're out of luck.

At least with democracies, the 'unfairness' of a dictatorship of a majority will last until the next election. So, there are built in checks and balances with democracies, which should ensure that change at the top can happen. Unforutanately, sometimes this means very little. I mean, is there really a qualitative difference between the Conservatives or Liberals? or the Democrats or Repubilcans? depending on the times, todays liberals can be more conservative than yesterday's tories.

Yakk

It also comes down to whether you believe your belief in your own rightiousness validates using force on others.

Do you really have that much faith, that much certainty, that democracy is what everyone wants right now?

Not everyone is so certain of this that they are willing to hold an atomic bomb to people's heads and say 'become democratic or die'.

edit
Not a problem! Like I said, have a good day.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

stevo

I think I know what you are trying to say here. But it is not as if we are fighting a whole country that does not want to be democratic, and forcing 20 million people to 'become democratic or die'. I think the turnout the iraqi's had last month clearly shows that the majority of the populace want to belong to a democratic society.

Democracy isn't about what everyone wants. Its about what most people want. And yes, I believe most people want democracy right now.

Manx

This conclusion is lacking evidence.

How do you know that the high turnout is not simply due to the natural desire to change the present state of total chaos? Simply because the only form of change available to them is this pseudo-democracy doesn't mean they support the concept of this pseudo-democracy.

Put another way,

Anything is better than total chaos. That doesn't mean whatever single option you have available is exactly what you want.

stevo

Yes it does. IF they didn't want it they didn't have to participate. The fact that they voted demonstrates that they want to participate in it.

It wasn't a single option. single option is "Saddam: YES, Saddam: NO" The iraqi people were given hundreds of different options. If they didn't want to choose one they didn't have to get their finger dipped in the purple ink.

Manx

No. The fact that they voted demonstrates that they prefer anything else over what they presently have.

That's all it demonstrates.

By single option I mean this pseudo-democracy or total chaos. If I had a single option I'd take totalitarianism over total chaos. Most people probably would, if only to get the water running again. That doesn't mean most people want totalitarianism. They want running water.

stevo

What they presently have will change, whether they vote or not. This they know. They know that if they don't voice their opinions now, via ballots, the radical fundamentalists will eventually take control. SO by voting, they demonstrated that they prefer democratic change and some say in the governance of their lives over present 'chaos' or future tyranny.

So my question to you, Manx, is do you believe that democratic-type governments are right for all people, and do you believe that the majority of people want a democratic-type government?