Bush Pushing Global Democratic Revolution

[WMS]

The only problem with Bush's plan is it's a ridiculous head in the clouds fantasy, basically just like communism, it sounds good but it won't work.

All the proof we need there is no "spread of democracy" effect: Togo. It's still a horrendously authoritarian dictatorship and has been forever, yet it's right between Ghana and Benin, two of of the freest and most democratic countries in Africa.

and yet somehow Iraq is going to spread democracy to the Middle East. Give me a break.

Could be, but it's better than pure coddle-the-dictators realism (check out Nixon-Kissinger policy in the 1971 India-Pakistan War for an example of that *shudders*). It's a longshot, but so was containment. And I'm not sure what else the U.S. can really do.

Yeah, Togo is a mess. I wish the African Union had been more aggressive in policing the last election there.

And on a tangent, Iran will democratize once the masses rise up against the hard-line clerical regime...once they feel they have the power to do it, since the clerics control all the guns.

[Mort from NewYawk]

The only problem with Bush's plan is it's a ridiculous head in the clouds fantasy, basically just like communism, it sounds good but it won't work.

For you to equate democracy, a 200+ year success in maximizing the "inalienable rights" of individuals - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with communism, a less than 100 year failed experiment in sacrificing all of those rights to a group of insider autocrats masquerading as a benificent "state", shows that you are terribly out of touch with some of the basic instincts of human nature.

Democracy is the inevitable outcome of world progress in forming a better political institution, because it is the only form of government that does work towards affording individuals maximum satisfaction in large diverse societies. That is why anyone who truly "gets" and appreciates the freedoms that America affords could ever wish America ill in it's standing in the world. Anyone who appreciates the freedoms that America affords holds as valuable the right of Muslims to worship as they like, on one hand, and on the other sees anyone who actively supports a philosophy that cheers the slaughter of 3000 American civilians as their enemy.

[phk]

The only problem with Bush's plan is it's a ridiculous head in the clouds fantasy, basically just like communism, it sounds good but it won't work.

For you to equate democracy, a 200+ year success in maximizing the "inalienable rights" of individuals - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with communism, a less than 100 year failed experiment in sacrificing all of those rights to a group of insider autocrats masquerading as a benificent "state", shows that you are terribly out of touch with some of the basic instincts of human nature.

Democracy is the inevitable outcome of world progress in forming a better political institution, because it is the only form of government that does work towards affording individuals maximum satisfaction in large diverse societies. That is why anyone who truly "gets" and appreciates the freedoms that America affords could ever wish America ill in it's standing in the world. Anyone who appreciates the freedoms that America affords holds as valuable the right of Muslims to worship as they like, on one hand, and on the other sees anyone who actively supports a philosophy that cheers the slaughter of 3000 American civilians as their enemy.

We should conduct an Islamic holocaust.

[Lunar]

All the proof we need there is no "spread of democracy" effect: Togo. It's still a horrendously authoritarian dictatorship and has been forever, yet it's right between Ghana and Benin, two of of the freest and most democratic countries in Africa.

I don't think anyone is arguing that democracy is 100% transferable to neighboring countries in every scenario.  So you need 'proof' that this example isn't an exception to what you are disproving.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It all depends on certain conditions and how successful Iraq is.  Ghana is a bit better than Togo, but not nearly as prosperous enough for the surrounding countries to want to emulate it.  If Iraq becomes a model for success, then it will have an influence on the political moods of the surrounding countries.  It's not like Iraq exists in a vacuum.

I think Egypt would be a far better country for this model to be proven with.  If Egypt AND Iraq become successful multiparty democracies, I think, in combination with Turkey, it could influence the entire region's political culture.  It's hard to predict.

Our position in Iraq will allow us to put more pressure on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.  Modern US pressure and influence tends to lead to at least some liberal reform (less civil rights abuses and so on).  Our position in Iraq, for example, allowed us to pressure Syria more on Lebanon.  When we aren't overstretched in the country anymore and there is an Iraqi army to back us up, our influence will magnify and become observable I'd imagine.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For you to equate democracy, a 200+ year success in maximizing the "inalienable rights" of individuals - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with communism, a less than 100 year failed experiment in sacrificing all of those rights to a group of insider autocrats masquerading as a benificent "state", shows that you are terribly out of touch with some of the basic instincts of human nature.

No, I'm not saying democracy is like that, I'm saying the idea that democracy can "spread" is like that. It's complete bullsh**t. There have been many cases in history of one country being a prosperous fair democracy and one right next to it being a hideously backward terrible dictatorship.

I don't think anyone is arguing that democracy is 100% transferable to neighboring countries in every scenario. So you need 'proof' that this example isn't an exception to what you are disproving.

OK. How much effect have South Korea and Taiwan had on their counterparts?

It all depends on certain conditions and how successful Iraq is. Ghana is a bit better than Togo, but not nearly as prosperous enough for the surrounding countries to want to emulate it. If Iraq becomes a model for success, then it will have an influence on the political moods of the surrounding countries. It's not like Iraq exists in a vacuum.

Um, it's not an issue of countries wanting to emulate it. The leaders of dictatorships don't care which political system works best for them, they just want to stay in power. Even if Iraq does become succesful, it's not like the Saudis or Syrians are going to say "gee, democracy is a good system!" and then flip to that.

For that matter there have been and are currently democracies in the Middle East anyway.

Hell by this logic, North Korea should look at South Korea and decide that since it's much better off, they should decide to emulate them. Yeah right!

I think Egypt would be a far better country for this model to be proven with. If Egypt AND Iraq become successful multiparty democracies, I think, in combination with Turkey, it could influence the entire region's political culture. It's hard to predict.

name any case in history where this happened. One country became a democracy so the rest in the area did through domino effect. It's just like the domino effect of communism garbage lie that was spread during Vietnam. Ideologies do not spread to neighboring countries, unless one country decides to put it through military force.

Our position in Iraq will allow us to put more pressure on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Modern US pressure and influence tends to lead to at least some liberal reform (less civil rights abuses and so on). Our position in Iraq, for example, allowed us to pressure Syria more on Lebanon. When we aren't overstretched in the country anymore and there is an Iraqi army to back us up, our influence will magnify and become observable I'd imagine.

No, all it did was alienate the rest of the world. I bet the Europeans would be more willing to work with us if it wasn't for Bush and Iraq. And if the same sequence of events occured in Lebanon, Syria would've pulled out even if Iraq hadn't been invaded, and the US had virtually nothing to do with that anyway.

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK. How much effect have South Korea and Taiwan had on their counterparts?[/quote]

China is steadily liberalizing and North Korea is feeling a crapload of international pressure.  It'd be swell if you could reread the first sentence of the paragraph you just quoted though. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, it's not an issue of countries wanting to emulate it. The leaders of dictatorships don't care which political system works best for them, they just want to stay in power. Even if Iraq does become succesful, it's not like the Saudis or Syrians are going to say "gee, democracy is a good system!" and then flip to that.

For that matter there have been and are currently democracies in the Middle East anyway.

Hell by this logic, North Korea should look at South Korea and decide that since it's much better off, they should decide to emulate them. Yeah right![/quote]

Leaders are only single people.  I guess, by your logic, no dictatorship would have ever collapsed ever in the history of mankind.   Without a mandate from the masses, a leader has a hell of a time ruling.  North Korea is a completely walled in society and is example proving my point.  Why do you think Kim Jong Il keeps his people ignorant as possible about the socioeconomic status of other countries?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

name any case in history where this happened. One country became a democracy so the rest in the area did through domino effect. It's just like the domino effect of communism garbage lie that was spread during Vietnam. Ideologies do not spread to neighboring countries, unless one country decides to put it through military force.[/quote]

Name a time where a country has influenced the political geography of a neighboring country?  Are you serious?

The entire continents of South America, North America, and Europe are a decent example.  America's model became emulated throughout our local hemisphere while the European model (sparked from our democratic revolution, but different) is pretty much a standard throughout that continent.  Why do you think so many countries in South and Central America have dual legislatures and a Constitution while all of the neighboring countries in Europe have parliaments and prime ministers?  Countries don't exist in a vacuum.

I don't get why we have to boil everything down to a meaningless example war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, all it did was alienate the rest of the world. I bet the Europeans would be more willing to work with us if it wasn't for Bush and Iraq. And if the same sequence of events occured in Lebanon, Syria would've pulled out even if Iraq hadn't been invaded, and the US had virtually nothing to do with that anyway.
[/quote]

That is one of my big criticisms of the war in Iraq.  If you remember, I didn't support the war.  However, I'm not going to be silly and pretend there was no benefit whatsoever to come from it.

Your response is really missing my point here though.  The US was in a unique position to pressure Syria with a strategic military position right next to it.  Obviously it wasn't TOO significant, because our military is overstretched and the threat of a military campaign in another country is mostly subdued.  US pressure in our current society tends to favor democratization and liberalization, it's not the Cold War anymore.  If the US has more of this pressure, then that will have an influence.  This wasn't my main point, just a supporting argument.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

China is steadily liberalizing and North Korea is feeling a crapload of international pressure.  It'd be swell if you could reread the first sentence of the paragraph you just quoted though.

China liberalizing? No, it's just turing into a dictatorship with free markets. Like Pinochet. It's still utterly horrible. North Korea's international pressure has nothing to do with the state of South Korea, the same thing would be happening if North Korea continued to act as it is now and South Korea was still a dictatorship.

Africa is still full of such examples. Here's another one: Botswana and South Africa vs. Zimbabwe. Or just look at Southeast Asia. Togo is the most obvious example, but looking at throughout the world it appears to be the rule, not the exception.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Supporters of such regimes hold to ideologies such as Baathism or Islamic fundamentalism that are undemocratic and don't care about the conditions of other democratic countries. It's not as if a Nazi supporter from 1930s Germany, if they were transported to modern day Europe, would all of a sudden decide that Nazism sucks and a democratic moderate government is better. Holders of extremist ideologies aren't persuaded.

You also ignored the point that succesful democracies have and currently do exist in the Middle East.

Name a time where a country has influenced the political geography of a neighboring country?  Are you serious?

no, the question is name an instance in history where one country became democratic and as a result every other neighboring country became democratic as well and that would've never happened without the first country to begin with. That's basically what the nonsense "domino effect" claim put by Bush supporters claims, that a democratic Iraq will somehow magically eliminate every dictatorship in the Middle East.

The entire continents of South America, North America, and Europe are a decent example.  America's model became emulated throughout our local hemisphere while the European model (sparked from our democratic revolution, but different) is pretty much a standard throughout that continent.  Why do you think so many countries in South and Central America have dual legislatures and a Constitution while all of the neighboring countries in Europe have parliaments and prime ministers?  Countries don't exist in a vacuum.

well this doesn't take into account that many such countries in Europe are constitutional monarchies which don't exist in the Western Hempisphere for fairly obvious reasons. This also is not an example of what I was asking for

Your response is really missing my point here though.  The US was in a unique position to pressure Syria with a strategic military position right next to it.  Obviously it wasn't TOO significant, because our military is overstretched and the threat of a military campaign in another country is mostly subdued.  US pressure in our current society tends to favor democratization and liberalization, it's not the Cold War anymore.  If the US has more of this pressure, then that will have an influence.  This wasn't my main point, just a supporting argument.

The US has always had influence in the Middle East long before occupying Iraq. It has basically occupied Kuwait for the past 13 years, yet that had no effect on Saddam. And it's pretty asinine to argue that Syria would've not withdrawn from Lebanon without the invasion of Iraq. Conservatives love to use a classic logical fallacy in this area, false cause, basically pointing to any positive development in the Middle East (and in some cases, the entire world) and claiming that it was because of Iraq. Even more asinine is garbage like that Kuwait gave women the right to vote recently because of Iraq, or the the entire world like I mentioned in claiming that Iraq somehow helped democraticize Ukraine, despite the fact the people in Ukraine fought to install a government that withdrew its troops from Iraq.[/quote]

[Lunar]

China is steadily liberalizing and North Korea is feeling a crapload of international pressure.  It'd be swell if you could reread the first sentence of the paragraph you just quoted though.

China liberalizing? No, it's just turing into a dictatorship with free markets. Like Pinochet. It's still utterly horrible. North Korea's international pressure has nothing to do with the state of South Korea, the same thing would be happening if North Korea continued to act as it is now and South Korea was still a dictatorship.

Africa is still full of such examples. Here's another one: Botswana and South Africa vs. Zimbabwe. Or just look at Southeast Asia. Togo is the most obvious example, but looking at throughout the world it appears to be the rule, not the exception.

I was going to pursue the example debate, but I deleted it. This is all irrelevant.  Let's cut the fat out of this conversation and focus on the key idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Supporters of such regimes hold to ideologies such as Baathism or Islamic fundamentalism that are undemocratic and don't care about the conditions of other democratic countries. It's not as if a Nazi supporter from 1930s Germany, if they were transported to modern day Europe, would all of a sudden decide that Nazism sucks and a democratic moderate government is better. Holders of extremist ideologies aren't persuaded.[/quote]

Ok, if you're going to argue that all of these countries exist in a vacuum and nothing that happens in another country can possible influence a neighboring country, this debate is over. 

If you're willing to concede that countries are surrounded by other countries with constant interaction and influence upon one another, then we can progress to a substantive discussion.  The question becomes how much influence Iraq democratizing will have, instead of whether it will have any.  We can discuss whether the influence will be negligible or significant, but I need you to see that SOME influence will happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have NEVER argued that as soon as a country is a democracy, all of the surrounding countries instantly convert.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no, the question is name an instance in history where one country became democratic and as a result every other neighboring country became democratic as well and that would've never happened without the first country to begin with. That's basically what the nonsense "domino effect" claim put by Bush supporters claims, that a democratic Iraq will somehow magically eliminate every dictatorship in the Middle East.[/quote]

Ok, I've already stated a multiple times that this is not the argument I'm defending.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

well this doesn't take into account that many such countries in Europe are constitutional monarchies which don't exist in the Western Hempisphere for fairly obvious reasons. This also is not an example of what I was asking for[/quote]

What do you mean?  My point was that the democratic structures in Europe are completely different from the democratic structures in North and South America.  All the European countries follow a similar model (a couple exceptions) and same with the American countries.  This is probably because Britain was the governmental model in Europe while the USA was the model in our hemisphere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US has always had influence in the Middle East long before occupying Iraq. etc. etc. etc.[/quote]

My point was that the USA now has MORE influence.  I never argued that the USA didn't have any before, that'd be absurd.

Let me lay out my arguments to refocus this discussion:

*Iraq and Egypt do not exist in a vacuum.  Thus, any signfiicant democratic reform will have a certain amount of influence on neighboring countries.
*Regions often have a certain political culture.  All of the Arabic countries seem even more closely knit than, say, South America, Southeast Asia, or Europe.
*Iraq and Egypt are some of the key countries in the Arabian political culture.  This, combined with a myriad of other factors, makes them UNIQUELY capable to making the Mideast more individualistic, secular, and liberal if they themselves are influenced in such a manner. 
>For example, I believe Egypt controls the vast number of intellectuals in the region and  Iraq has a strategic position to become a success story.  I'm not intimate enough to list every single influencing factor, but I can list more if you want them.

Here's what I'm not arguing:
-I'm not arguing any of your anti-Bush characterizations of 'conservative' arguments.
-I'm not arguing that every country has this potential.  So Qatar doesn't have the same potential as Egypt.  All my arguments are specific to Iraq and Egypt and are NOT applicable in random examples you pull out of Subsaharan Africa or East Asia.  I'm not saying that this is a rule, but rather a unique opportunity in the Mideast due to the current circumstances.