Bring Democracy to the World

[John Dibble]

Let's say we do change the region. Does that mean the terrorists will go away? Not necessarily. They'll be smaller numbers for sure, but I doubt they'll just up and leave. Also consider that in fifty years we might have to deal with some whole NEW terrorist group, not necessarily Islamic. Perhaps eco-terrorists will be the next big thing.

[Patunia]

Let's say we do change the region. Does that mean the terrorists will go away? Not necessarily. They'll be smaller numbers for sure, but I doubt they'll just up and leave. Also consider that in fifty years we might have to deal with some whole NEW terrorist group, not necessarily Islamic. Perhaps eco-terrorists will be the next big thing.

Yes, there will always be fringe radical groups. But we fight the fights that are the most important to fight at any given time. Has the IRA launched any attacks on the US or coluded to do so? Not that Im aware of. So we dont send our troops to Ireland.

[John Dibble]

Let's say we do change the region. Does that mean the terrorists will go away? Not necessarily. They'll be smaller numbers for sure, but I doubt they'll just up and leave. Also consider that in fifty years we might have to deal with some whole NEW terrorist group, not necessarily Islamic. Perhaps eco-terrorists will be the next big thing.

Yes, there will always be fringe radical groups. But we fight the fights that are the most important to fight at any given time. Has the IRA launched any attacks on the US or coluded to do so? Not that Im aware of. So we dont send our troops to Ireland.

Well, yeah. Isn't that what I said? Don't attack countries that don't attack us. If a country harbors or supports groups that attack us, they are supporters of the enemy and therefore are the enemy. However, the problem with the Middle East is that it's huge and the problem is widespread. We have to pick our battles wisely and time them right. We could attack Syria or Iran next year if we wanted, but the timing would be poor and likely just energize the terrorist movement even more. I say unless something big happens just leave them be and have the results of Iraq speak for itself(as it will become one of the most prosperous nations in the area) and hope it influences other nations to make changes.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The goal is not to eliminate terrorism; that's like eliminating crime. But terrorists can't get nukes without a country willing to hand them over.

[Brambila]

Syria. Get those weapons. We can't just let them go into the hands of Syrians.

[A18]

Those weapons can kill tons of people (and they almost did, in a story that got zero press), but just think NUKES. I think we're going to have to fight both, frankly.

[freedomburns]

No vote.  It is not the job of the US to go around being the police man of the world.

If there was a threat to our us directly, or if there was a consensus among our allies, and all diplomatic possibilites had been exausted, then maybe.

You can not bring Democracy at the barrel of a gun.  That has never worked.  It must be birthed internally, as it was in South Africa.

freedomburns

[Nym90]

Kim-Jong Il, with Omar-al Bashir a close second. We should oppose ALL dictatorships and support democracy everwhere...if we did this on a consistent basis we would be respected and liked in the world. This is the only way we will ultimately achieve world peace and stability, to oppose all dictators, not support those that big business wants us to support (i.e., China, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

[Lunar]

No vote.  It is not the job of the US to go around being the police man of the world.

Interesting that the liberal foreign policy viewpoint has drifted towards isolationism.

My viewpoint is a hawkish one to promote liberal values like eliminating poverty and encouraging stable democracies.  I feel that the United States has the obligation to protect our interests, and if we benefit others by doing so, the obligation is all the more greater.  I feel strongly promoting democracy in the world meets both of these conditions.  Violent means are ok to accomplish this as long as they remain limited and the ends justify the small cost in human life that would be created.  Coups, funding internal forces, and strategic military strikes are all acceptable as long as they accomplish the ends I pointed about above.

I could go into all of the reasons why it is in our interests (economy, diplomatic relationships, military alliances, etc.) but I'm too lazy.

[Patunia]

You can not bring Democracy at the barrel of a gun.  That has never worked.  It must be birthed internally, as it was in South Africa.

freedomburns

I read this so often but have to see an example. Please provide an example.

[Lunar]

You can not bring Democracy at the barrel of a gun.  That has never worked.  It must be birthed internally, as it was in South Africa.

freedomburns

I read this so often but have to see an example. Please provide an example.

South Africa had a lot of external forces putting enormous pressure on it as well, so that is a bad example for FB to use.

Germany and Japan are examples to prove the "barrel of the gun" statement incorrect.

[freedomburns]

Ok, all thirteen countries that comprised the USSR (Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, Tadjikistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) Poland, the Czeck Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, East Germany, Hungary, The Phillipines, Austrailia, Kenya, The United States, Canada, Mexico... um, almost every democracy on the planet had to evolve itself.  You need to have the right institutions and the right leadership for it to work.  They all got outside help, but none of them were invaded and had democracy imposed on them at gunpoint whether they wanted it or not.

And you only prove my point by stating that countries like South Africa had pressures from outside that influenced it.  That is EXACTLY the point.  I participated in many protests at my campus in the mid-Eighties to get the UC regents to divest from their business interests in South Africa until the apartheid regime was overthrown.  That is how you do it.  That is how you influence countries to make the changes they need to make internally, on their own, to create a democracy.  

[freedomburns]

You can not bring Democracy at the barrel of a gun.  That has never worked.  It must be birthed internally, as it was in South Africa.

freedomburns

I read this so often but have to see an example. Please provide an example.

South Africa had a lot of external forces putting enormous pressure on it as well, so that is a bad example for FB to use.

Germany and Japan are examples to prove the "barrel of the gun" statement incorrect.

Japan and Germany invaded "us" you numbskull.  IF any country wants to invade us, or our close allies, I completely condone counterattack and invasion with the intent of overthrowing and replacing their government and their political institutions.

South Africa is a perfect example of how you help a country to evolve into a democracy.  Iraq is a perfect example of blatant imperialism to seize resources (oil).  Japan and Germany were perfect examples of what should happen to decayed, warmongering societies that engage in imperialism to seize resources; they should have their governments removed and their political institutions converted or replaced, and their culture should be roto-rootered.  Nazism should have been and did become anathema in Germany, just as hawkish-American-Republicanism will become anathema in the United States.  

When the right time comes, the way to peace will be abundantly clear.  

And when the revolution comes, we may find a good use for Republicans as a source of protein.

[Patunia]

You can not bring Democracy at the barrel of a gun.  That has never worked.  It must be birthed internally, as it was in South Africa.

freedomburns

I read this so often but have to see an example. Please provide an example.

South Africa had a lot of external forces putting enormous pressure on it as well, so that is a bad example for FB to use.

Germany and Japan are examples to prove the "barrel of the gun" statement incorrect.

Japan and Germany invaded "us" you numbskull.  IF any country wants to invade us, or our close allies, I completely condone counterattack and invasion with the intent of overthrowing and replacing their government and their political institutions.

South Africa is a perfect example of how you help a country to evolve into a democracy.  Iraq is a perfect example of blatant imperialism to seize resources (oil).  Japan and Germany were perfect examples of what should happen to decayed, warmongering societies that engage in imperialism to seize resources; they should have their governments removed and their political institutions converted or replaced, and their culture should be roto-rootered.  Nazism should have been and did become anathema in Germany, just as hawkish-American-Republicanism will become anathema in the United States.  

When the right time comes, the way to peace will be abundantly clear.  

And when the revolution comes, we may find a good use for Republicans as a source of protein.

Sorry, but you still havent answered my question. Name one country that has been taken by force in the world with the intention of transforming it into a democracy and then departing and said country not remaining so?

[khirkhib]

See Freedom Burns I made this thread just to see how crazy people on this board are.  We did not win the Cold War because we had wars in Korea and Vietnam (you can probably include Cambodia during VIetnam and Cuba if you include Bay of Pigs) in fact the country's that we did have wars in are amongst the few that still remain communist.  The countries that became democratic are the ones that recieved unified pressure from the world were pried upon by capitalism.  These guys are nuts we can not destroy terrorism by attacking it.  You can not defeat war with war.  We have to defend our selves throughly, we have to encourage open markets in the world, develop the global economy and give foreign governments a reason to believe us.  This neo-con leaderships is NUTS  and a few republicans see that.  Time to open your eyes to the reality of global politics.  If we can't conquor, invade and satiate everybody.  All 19 and more than this is a losing stratedgy.

[A18]

Uh, yeah. No one said anything about taking out 19 countries. And the fact is, we easily could.

You can't defeat war with war? What? You don't defeat wars, you fight them. Then you win, and it's over.

You have proposed no realistic solution to terrorism whatsoever.

[Bogart]

I don't think it is our responsibility to bring democracy to the world. There are plenty of good governments that are not democratic. The test should always remain: does a particular government threaten our national interest?  I f the answer is "no," then military action is absolutely the wrong policy.

We should act very judiciously with any military undertaking. The "nuke 'em 'til they glow" crowd is just reckless.

[Lunar]

You can not bring Democracy at the barrel of a gun.  That has never worked.  It must be birthed internally, as it was in South Africa.

freedomburns

I read this so often but have to see an example. Please provide an example.

South Africa had a lot of external forces putting enormous pressure on it as well, so that is a bad example for FB to use.

Germany and Japan are examples to prove the "barrel of the gun" statement incorrect.

Japan and Germany invaded "us" you numbskull.  IF any country wants to invade us, or our close allies, I completely condone counterattack and invasion with the intent of overthrowing and replacing their government and their political institutions.

First off, cut the harsh language.  If you want to have a debate, stop insulting me.

Secondly, I used Japan and Germany as examples on how a military occupation can create a stable democracy.  We weren't using civilian administration to impose our will in these two cases.

South Africa is a perfect example of how you help a country to evolve into a democracy.  <.Iraq stuff..>

And I do approve of using extreme political and economic pressure to create democracy.  It seemed that you were using it to argue an isolationist advocacy, which would make it a poor example.  However, if you were using it for an anti-military intervention advocacy, then I suppose it's somewhat decent, although it doesn't accomplish much besides refuting anyone claiming that military is always required.  I hope no one is saying that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Civility..

[Lunar]

And you only prove my point by stating that countries like South Africa had pressures from outside that influenced it.  That is EXACTLY the point.  I participated in many protests at my campus in the mid-Eighties to get the UC regents to divest from their business interests in South Africa until the apartheid regime was overthrown.  That is how you do it.  That is how you influence countries to make the changes they need to make internally, on their own, to create a democracy.  

Ok, and I agree that this was appropiate for South Africa.  However, you can't use one, or even fifty examples in this context.  I'm not saying that we should use military every time and I'm certainly not saying we should use it in cases where it would occur without us, so who cares?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many of those aren't democracies..

You must be logged in to read this quote.

East Germany was never a democracy while it existed as an entity.   Most democracies were not caused by miltiary intervention or coups, I agree.  That does not prove that a military or a coup is incapable of creating a democracy.  

A democratic coup in a country can be successful, as has been shown by pretty much every democractic country in existance.  Does the United States funding the coup somehow cause it not to succeed?

Like I said, I don't really support invading a country like North Korea or Iran for the sole purpose of creating democracy.  However, a surgical strike is acceptable, supposing that democracy would follow.  For that to be the case, the country would have to be ripe for it of course, which means that there would be institutions and leadership available to draw from.  If the specifics of a country in question would cause it to plunge into anarchy in response to any intervention, then I would not advocate it.