Spreading Freedom and Democracy

I have been thinking for a long time about the Western policy to replace dictators and give Nations freedom and Democracy.Altough i think it is great that people can be free and make their own decisions,but shouldnt it be the choice of the Natives weather they want be free or not.Ofcourse Democracies should support other Nations that want to go down that path,but i dont think it shouldnt be handed out.Can freedom be given to a Nation? I think it should not.In my wiew in order for people to respect their freedom they should make the sacrificies necessary them selves.Is given freedom worth anything?

Iraq as a whole is making plenty of sacrifices to "earn" their freedom. The car bombs kill far more civilians than US soldiers. :book:

If the people of a nation want to deal with a tyrant, they should try. Presuming that those trying represent a majority, help should be given. If most citizens don't care or enjoy their current form of government, then invading for the sake of democracy is absolute bullshit. That's a crap point of view, I know, but I can't think of anything better to say and can't explain it further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Iraq as a whole is making plenty of sacrifices to "earn" their freedom. The car bombs kill far more civilians than US soldiers. :book:

---

This is exactly what im talking about.If the people cant understand or appreciate their freedom wouldnt it have been better to not give it to them?

We tend to spread freedom as we spread Philadelphia cheese on a bagel. Too much, and it goes over the side, too little and you don't feel the taste. Then again, where's the jam?

For example lets create a hypothetical situation.I dont think there are big chances that his will turn into reality.Lets say that for some reason the Iran situation turns in a full War between Western Nations and Iran and in the end Iran is soundly beaten to its knees.Should The Western Powers try to create an Democratic system to Iran with force while its Fundamental Government has a large support from the poplulation and there is no real opposition?My answer:No. In my mind if the Government has a large support of its population and it goes to war,then the enemy shouldnt think they are not just fighting against a regime but a country and act according to it.Basicly beat them up and let them think themselves was this so wise move to do.If after that they would come to an conclusion that maybe their current model of running the country is not the best one available the West should support them in that decision.

Quote:

---

its Fundamental Government has a large support from the poplulation and there is no real opposition?

---

I don't think the situation there is that simple. There is real opposition - it's jailed and/or executed.

What popularity poll should we use to determine if a government is supported by the populace? Is 50% a high enough level of support? 75%?

How can we tell if "the people... understand or appreciate their freedom"?

Does the US understand or appreciate our freedom? I would argue no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I don't think the situation there is that simple. There is real opposition - it's jailed and/or executed.

What popularity poll should we use to determine if a government is supported by the populace? Is 50% a high enough level of support? 75%?

How can we tell if "the people... understand or appreciate their freedom"?

Does the US understand or appreciate our freedom? I would argue no.

---

Well if we go back on history the majority of the so called "West" has got their democratic Government model after armed conflict,dont you agree? For example in Iran they also have had a succesfull rebellion that resulted in a Islamistic revolution. So if there is such a big will in turning into more free democratic system why isnt there a armed rebellion in Iran at the moment?
About US understanding and appreciating its freedom,i cant answer becouse im not from US.But i havent heard in news about a large opposition against your Government model.

Very good question Kagemusha.
And I find that the answer is a most definitely NO!

Freedom and the state of mind that go with it can’t be forced.
Trying to shove democracy down their throats is as dangerous as it is dim-witted.
Not only you risk the threat of they coming to hate everything that stands for and with it;
You also risk to demolish an idea that sooner or later would develop on its own anyway.
In other words” Beat them to the governmental stone-age”.

I find that the perfect example can be found in “southern”-Africa.
By so many years of exploiting the natives and shoving our form of government on them,
They adapted a system that or they weren’t ready for or doesn’t fit the native way of life.
As a consequence you find massive forms of corruptions and other abuses in their governments.

I find that the best comparison is the one with agriculture.
Their lands aren’t suited fore our types of agricultural processes.
Our heavy machinery and ways of fertilizing are destroying their lands.
Simply because the fertility of the land is more surfaced.
And not suited for “western” processes.
They need to find their own system their own way!

However,
Since we most likely “have to” invade Iran we could as well build up a small foundation of democratic believes (mind you ;not management!).
And get the hell out of there as soon as possible!

The Athenians of ancient Greece, one of the role models used by the founding fathers, the other being ancient Rome, in the founding of the United States, thought that they could force their democratic ways on many of their neighbors. This led to the long and bloody Peloponnesian Wars. The opposing states, mainly oligarchies, banded together against them with Sparta as their leader. Despite the "worthy ideals of democracy" espoused by Athens, she was rather ruthless in the spreading of her "doctrine". As a matter of course, she would use the refusal of any of her rivals refusal to join her Athenian League as a pretext for invasion, even sacking the Island city state of Mitylene (if memory serves) as an example to others. Her actual goals were actually much more economic, but this is how she deluded herself. Athens ultimately lost the War, after much bloodshed and sacrifice.

And then there was Rome, our other example of a republic. Spreading "civilization" and "Roman Law" were often used as an excuse for war. I won't begin to try and name all of the historical precidents known. Many of you already could site them better than me. An arguement can definately be made that there is some comparison with todays democracies.

What concerns me is the nagging question, are the United States and United Kingdom, both recognised leaders of the "free" west, not heading down the same path? Is this the spreading of freedom, or just a new "Pax Romana" for the 21st century?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Well if we go back on history the majority of the so called "West" has got their democratic Government model after armed conflict,dont you agree? For example in Iran they also have had a succesfull rebellion that resulted in a Islamistic revolution. So if there is such a big will in turning into more free democratic system why isnt there a armed rebellion in Iran at the moment?
About US understanding and appreciating its freedom,i cant answer becouse im not from US.But i havent heard in news about a large opposition against your Government model.

---

So contentment is the same as understanding and appreciating freedom?

I ask this: how is one nation worthy of democracy and another not? The Islamic revolution in Iran was at least in part due to the US's lack of support for the Mean But Secular (R) Shah. Currently in Iran, bloggers are jailed for speaking out against the government. But Iran isn't even the main issue.

So far, the only places we've been spreading democracy is Afghanistan and Iraq. The former was more accidental; defeating the Taliban was #1, not freedom and democracy. As for Iraq, how is a population NOT appreciating democracy when they go out and risk death to vote?! That seems more appreciative than here in the US when more than half the population doesn't give a wooden nickel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

I find that the perfect example can be found in “southern”-Africa.
By so many years of exploiting the natives and shoving our form of government on them,

---

Give me a concerted effort by a Western nation to spread freedom and democracy to an African nation. The problems of corruption you lament come more from greed than democracy. We don't shove democracy down too many throuts in Africa - we just support one oil-rich gangster or another.

And what just is the native state of government that Africa needs so dearly? That's pretty much racism to claim that "natives" ("lesser beings," anyone?) can't handle democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

We tend to spread freedom as we spread Philadelphia cheese on a bagel. Too much, and it goes over the side, too little and you don't feel the taste. Then again, where's the jam?

---

Holy cow!
Must write this one down quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

So contentment is the same as understanding and appreciating freedom?

I ask this: how is one nation worthy of democracy and another not? The Islamic revolution in Iran was at least in part due to the US's lack of support for the Mean But Secular (R) Shah. Currently in Iran, bloggers are jailed for speaking out against the government. But Iran isn't even the main issue.

So far, the only places we've been spreading democracy is Afghanistan and Iraq. The former was more accidental; defeating the Taliban was #1, not freedom and democracy. As for Iraq, how is a population NOT appreciating democracy when they go out and risk death to vote?! That seems more appreciative than here in the US when more than half the population doesn't give a wooden nickel.

---

But the Islamistic revolution was the will of the people of Iran.If the US had intervened wasnt it have been against the values that US upholds?What is a country other then its people?If there would be will to replace the Power of Clerics in Iran by majority,dont you believe they could do it?About spreading or protecting Democracy i remember quite of few other conflicts where "West" has been fighting to protect or create democracy starting from WWII.~;) About risking ones life.Isnt the job of creating Democracy the burden of the Iraqis not US.If one wants to be free unfortunately he or she should be willing to die for that right.The government is for Iraqis.Do you think they would have overthrown Saddam Hussein themselves? After years of sanctions there still wasnt a powerfull opposition in Iraq.
About US.Thats the beauty of Democracy.You have your vote and those who use it affect the decision making of their country.Those who dont,well if they dont care who runs the country then they deserve the government they get.If not anything else by voting you can secure your right to complaint about matters untill the next elections.If one doesnt vote he should just shut up,becouse he havent used his right to express his wiews.~;)

Give me a concerted effort by a Western nation to spread freedom and democracy to an African nation. The problems of corruption you lament come more from greed than democracy. We don't shove democracy down too many throuts in Africa - we just support one oil-rich gangster or another.

And what just is the native state of government that Africa needs so dearly? That's pretty much racism to claim that "natives" ("lesser beings," anyone?) can't handle democracy.

Okay,...

We didn’t try to persuade them to our forms like modern Iraq or so.
We just putted them there or some chose it because it was the “almighty” western way
Different way, same result!

No offence my friend.
But where the hell did you get the racist idea?
Don’t tell me that you so strongly believe that democracy is the only way.

If so, allow me to burst you’re bubble here.
First of all because WE believe that it’s a good system doesn’t automatically mean everybody does.

Ever been to Africa?
I’ve you had you would’ve noticed that its got a totally different mentality.
Not even close to ours.
Do you really have the arrogance to assume because it maybe works for us it will work for them?
Do you have the arrogance to tell people what they should believe in and what ideas they should follow?
(What you’re saying is “I like cola and the dude that likes Pepsi is an ignorant fool.
Because I know what the best taste is, and it isn’t Pepsi!”)

And if it would be true that democracy isn’t the best choice over there doesn’t mean their ignorant!
Just different.
Not better, not worse, just different.
And before you start…
No, that doesn’t mean we can’t get along.

Upxl - what government should they have, then, if democracy isn't any good? So far it seems they haven't found it - despots of one flavor or another lead to brutal and corrupt regimes.

As to the racism thing, you are saying, "because they are different they shouldn't have democracy." Replace the word "democracy" with "human rights" and you have a very racist phrase.

And democracy is an awful form of government, but what's better? There have been relatively few benevolent dictators (if you ignore certain poster's regards for Castro and Chavez :laugh4: ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

First of all because WE believe that it’s a good system doesn’t automatically mean everybody does.

---

And in this case WE are right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

But the Islamistic revolution was the will of the people of Iran.If the US had intervened wasnt it have been against the values that US upholds?What is a country other then its people?If there would be will to replace the Power of Clerics in Iran by majority,dont you believe they could do it?

---

I haven't been advocating overthrowing Iran, mind you. I have mostly been arguing about Iraq. There was a country were the "majority" seemed content with Saddam in power. No rebellions (though some massacres brought on by the Gulf War). But we removed their government, and gave them the opportunity to form their own democratically.

They came out in droves against threats of death to vote.

If democracy "wasn't for them" why did they do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Isnt the job of creating Democracy the burden of the Iraqis not US.If one wants to be free unfortunately he or she should be willing to die for that right.The government is for Iraqis.Do you think they would have overthrown Saddam Hussein themselves? After years of sanctions there still wasnt a powerfull opposition in Iraq.

---

Saddam had a nasty habit of killing dissenters. Funny thing about dictators...

I give up :wall:

For example in Iran they also have had a succesfull rebellion that resulted in a Islamistic revolution. So if there is such a big will in turning into more free democratic system why isnt there a armed rebellion in Iran at the moment?

Depends on what you call successful , there were lots of different groups involved in the revolution , all wanting different things , but all in agreement that their current rulers had to go .
Once the regime had been kicked out the strongest group of the many involved took most power from its position of strength and imposed its aims over those of its former allies , the former allies either went along with it in the hope of maintaining some influence , or went their own way as counter revolutionaries . Though many that went along with it ended up being branded counter revolutionaries anyway and getting the same treatment as the rest .
BTW since it escaped your notice , there is an armed rebellion going on in Iran , in fact there are several and they have been going on ever since the post revolutionary split .

Actually , come to think of it its pretty similar to the Russian revolution and what happened to all the different groups involved , or the French revolution for that matter .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Iraq as a whole is making plenty of sacrifices to "earn" their freedom. The car bombs kill far more civilians than US soldiers. :book:

---

Perhaps currently, now that the insurgency is in full swing...

Before that, I'm afraid it was mostly us...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct28.html

Note the date, before the insurgency...

I believe he meant that Car Bombs had killed more civilian targets than they had US soldiers.. could be wrong though.

That's what I meant.

And the article Reenk Roink posted mentions that the 100k figure was widely challenged - it is far from accepted fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

That's what I meant.

---

Sorry I thought you were saying that the insurgents killed more Iraqi's than we did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

And the article Reenk Roink posted mentions that the 100k figure was widely challenged - it is far from accepted fact.

---

Exactly, that's why I chose it. It was a well balanced article. Anti-war organizations like to inflate numbers just as supporters like to keep them low. But my point wasn't how many we killed. My point was that we were doing the killing in the early stages of the war, which is why I pointed out the date of the article...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I haven't been advocating overthrowing Iran, mind you. I have mostly been arguing about Iraq. There was a country were the "majority" seemed content with Saddam in power. No rebellions (though some massacres brought on by the Gulf War). But we removed their government, and gave them the opportunity to form their own democratically.

They came out in droves against threats of death to vote.

If democracy "wasn't for them" why did they do it?


Saddam had a nasty habit of killing dissenters. Funny thing about dictators...

---

Alexander im not sure what we are arguing here about.So lets start again.My original statement was that i think people should claim their freedom themselves.It shouldnt be handed to them by some third party.Do you agree or not?Ofcourse Dictators kill people.But shouldnt the dethroning of Dictators or opressive regimes should be the concern of the people of that country not some third party?I never have sayed that Democracy was not for the Iraqis or did i?How i feel is that if people want to change their government they should be do it themselves.It shouldnt be done by others.Ofcourse if the people have the will to do it then other Nations should help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

For example in Iran they also have had a succesfull rebellion that resulted in a Islamistic revolution. So if there is such a big will in turning into more free democratic system why isnt there a armed rebellion in Iran at the moment?

Depends on what you call successful , there were lots of different groups involved in the revolution , all wanting different things , but all in agreement that their current rulers had to go .
Once the regime had been kicked out the strongest group of the many involved took most power from its position of strength and imposed its aims over those of its former allies , the former allies either went along with it in the hope of maintaining some influence , or went their own way as counter revolutionaries . Though many that went along with it ended up being branded counter revolutionaries anyway and getting the same treatment as the rest .
BTW since it escaped your notice , there is an armed rebellion going on in Iran , in fact there are several and they have been going on ever since the post revolutionary split .

Actually , come to think of it its pretty similar to the Russian revolution and what happened to all the different groups involved , or the French revolution for that matter .

---

Isnt a rebellion succesfull when they succeed in their goal?Can i ask you how big are these rebellions becouse i havent seen a single mention about those in press or television.I totally agree with you on the similarities of Russian and French revelutions.But when ever a rebellion happends usually the strongest party that has most support wins.So it is kind of hard for me to see that Iran for example is a nation in hunger from democracy but they just dont admit it. In my mind its semi democratic theocracy and that is exactly how the majority of Iranians wants it to be.

Isnt a rebellion succesfull when they succeed in their goal?
Yep , in so far as the goal was to get rid of the Shah , but what of all the other goals , the tribalists , the socialists , the nationalists , the seperatists , the secularists ? Only the Sh'ite theocrats got all their goals .
Can i ask you how big are these rebellions becouse i havent seen a single mention about those in press or television.
Well the one in the North West has had pretty much a complete news blackout since Iran moved an extra 12,000 troops in to restore order . Though the cross border shelling did make the news recently .
You must have read about the one in the West that is being blamed on the British and Americans . Some quite nasty bombing there recently .
The one in the North East has had absolutely no coverage since the invasion of Afghanistan .
The one in the South East is getting very nasty , but that has the problem of a news blackout from both sides of the border .

I will see if I can post some links to the revolutionary groups who didn't get what they wanted out of the revolution .
Though come to think of it the US recently released an intelligence assessment on Irans Nuclear program by one of the groups , but they had to use the groups new friendly political name as the normal one is on the proscribed terrorist list and they don't deal with terrorists .
Especially not terrorists who attacked US Embassies and got funded by Saddam~;)

But when ever a rebellion happends usually the strongest party that has most support wins.
Unless it it is the "clever" party that is going to be really ruthless in making sure that it wins . Like in Russia , surely the army/navy parties must have been the strongest , surely the peasant parties must have had most support . But the bolsheivics were damn ruthless in making sure it was their version of revolution that won out .

I could be completely off base here but I don’t typically see citizens under a dictatorship praise their form of government, where those who are living in democracies frequently speak well of theirs.

Since most people in the “west” are living a life of prosperity and have a desire to help those less fortunate, we obviously want to try and make things the same in other places as they are here. It often seems to be a more difficult thing to actually accomplish than to want, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Democracy (of some kind) is one of the best forms of government for human rights and commerce. If you want to be successful and live a prosperous life what form of government would you choose to have in today’s world setting? It’s a no brainer.

Wouldn’t it be irresponsible or selfish to reserve assistance to those who live under harsh or completely oppressive dictatorships (or other “bad” leaders)? If I have the means to help overthrow a “bad” government shouldn’t I? I can’t believe anyone who opposes the poor treatment of a few hundred US prisoners could want to reserve help from thousands or millions of people who suffer much harsher lives under the rule of a “bad” government.

Honestly, I think the “west” usually interfere when we should but not with as much dedication as we should. We seem to dabble enough to make a headline then move on when we should be making a bigger commitment of continued support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I could be completely off base here but I don’t typically see citizens under a dictatorship praise their form of government, where those who are living in democracies frequently speak well of theirs.

Since most people in the “west” are living a life of prosperity and have a desire to help those less fortunate, we obviously want to try and make things the same in other places as they are here. It often seems to be a more difficult thing to actually accomplish than to want, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Democracy (of some kind) is one of the best forms of government for human rights and commerce. If you want to be successful and live a prosperous life what form of government would you choose to have in today’s world setting? It’s a no brainer.

Wouldn’t it be irresponsible or selfish to reserve assistance to those who live under harsh or completely oppressive dictatorships (or other “bad” leaders)? If I have the means to help overthrow a “bad” government shouldn’t I? I can’t believe anyone who opposes the poor treatment of a few hundred US prisoners could want to reserve help from thousands or millions of people who suffer much harsher lives under the rule of a “bad” government.

Honestly, I think the “west” usually interfere when we should but not with as much dedication as we should. We seem to dabble enough to make a headline then move on when we should be making a bigger commitment of continued support.

---

Ofcourse if there is democratic Revolution we should support it.But if there arent?If we go back in history and see how the Western countries mostly turned into Democracies,it was through revolutions and Civil Wars.:bow:

Well, we (the US) hasn't gone around overthrowing governments of nations that are completely happy. Iraq was hardly overjoyed to have a murderer in charge, and there was at least one uprising put down with extreme force.

America has a real complex about "non-democratic" governments. Its the whole revolutionary attitude. America refused to deal with the Kaisar in WWI so he had to go, so the British didn't support Germany in the "peace talks" and they got arse-raped by the French for a war they didn't even start.

Result: Another war, that America joined late.

Quite frankly I think they should keep their noses out until there is an uprising, or a real threat. Had they found WMD in Iraq I might be in a better mood now. As it is I have friends over there dieing.

Well at least Blair will be out soon.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Altough i think it is great that people can be free and make their own decisions,but shouldnt it be the choice of the Natives weather they want be free or not.

---

Ya. I agree. The jews should have risen up against Hitler and handled that themselves. If they wanted to be free, they should have made that choice.

Same thing with Pol Pot in Cambodia. And Kim Jung Il in North Korea. And Mussolini in Italy. And Francisco Franco in Spain. And "insert African leader here".

Let 'em fight their own battles.

Exactly. If the French couldn't free themselves, why should we have liberated France?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Ya. I agree. The jews should have risen up against Hitler and handled that themselves. If they wanted to be free, they should have made that choice.

Same thing with Pol Pot in Cambodia. And Kim Jung Il in North Korea. And Mussolini in Italy. And Francisco Franco in Spain. And "insert African leader here".

Let 'em fight their own battles.

---

A shame no one helped the indians.


But I agree - you should help people, especially if your intentions are genuine and noble, which I think not was the case, however, that is another story.

“Presuming that those trying represent a majority, help should be given.” Hum, all the revolution started with active minorities. It is difficult to evaluate political involvement under dictatorship. Were the US insurgents the majority when they started the process to independence? I don’t know, but I know that the French Resistants (internal and external) were NOT the majority in 1940. Nevertheless THEY were right.:2thumbsup:

“If the people of a nation want to deal with a tyrant, they should try” They did, in Iraq. Do you remember what happen? The coalition let 2 divisions of the Republican Guards go to Basra to crush the rebellion, and the Kurds fled by thousands to Turkey. :embarassed:

“overthrowing governments of nations that are completely happy” Allende? Chile? Elected president… States, all of them, are able of everything…:dizzy2:

“The jews should have risen up against Hitler” How? No body believed that Hitler will implement his programme…

“Francisco Franco in Spain” Hum, they did and it gave one of the bloodiest civil was of Europe…:no:

“If the French couldn't free themselves, why should we have liberated France?” Well, it happens that the French Territory was on the way to go to Germany. And also in 1944 the French had half a million of soldiers fighting with the allies (1 million at the end of 1944).
And a lot of them were communists, and what could happen with armed communists when the Red Army should have reached the Rhine? :inquisitive:
Paris was liberated by the French, thank to Patton who let the 2nd D.B to go to rescue the insurgents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

A shame no one helped the indians.

---

Gimme a break. It's a shame nobody helped the Celts. Or the Saxons.

Let's talk modern politics here. The "Invasion" of North America by the "evil" British colonists is a tad silly here.

Brenus, I can't even tell which side of the argument you support. You seem to contradict yourself in your own post:

Quote:

---

“If the people of a nation want to deal with a tyrant, they should try” They did, in Iraq. Do you remember what happen? The coalition let 2 divisions of the Republican Guards go to Basra to crush the rebellion, and the Kurds fled by thousands to Turkey.

---

So you believe that they could npot do it themselves, right? But yet;

Quote:

---

“Francisco Franco in Spain” Hum, they did and it gave one of the bloodiest civil was of Europe…

---

So they shouldn't even try because it is too costly?

The continentals threw off the yoke of Britain. And the South was defeated despite her efforts to throw off the "tyranny of the North" (Despite what government sponsored history books tell us, the civil war was not a fight for slavery- it was a fight for states rights). Should Europe have aided the South in her fight for liberty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Ya. I agree. The jews should have risen up against Hitler and handled that themselves. If they wanted to be free, they should have made that choice.

Same thing with Pol Pot in Cambodia. And Kim Jung Il in North Korea. And Mussolini in Italy. And Francisco Franco in Spain. And "insert African leader here".

Let 'em fight their own battles.

---

Oh please DA did you read the original posts.:dizzy2: How many times i have to say that people should be helped if there is a real will to overthrow their opressors.One basic tought: Should freedom be earned or given?GAH!:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Gimme a break. It's a shame nobody helped the Celts. Or the Saxons.

Let's talk modern politics here. The "Invasion" of North America by the "evil" British colonists is a tad silly here.

Brenus, I can't even tell which side of the argument you support. You seem to contradict yourself in your own post:



So you believe that they could npot do it themselves, right? But yet;


So they shouldn't even try because it is too costly?

The continentals threw off the yoke of Britain. And the South was defeated despite her efforts to throw off the "tyranny of the North" (Despite what government sponsored history books tell us, the civil war was not a fight for slavery- it was a fight for states rights). Should Europe have aided the South in her fight for liberty?

---

Yeah, states "rights" to own human beings.

“Brenus, I can't even tell which side of the argument you support.”
No, I wanted just to highlight some mistakes in some answers.
My OPINION is that people have to show they wanted to fight for their freedom.

However, I KNOW that it is little bit more complex than that. I learned that for most of the populations, their freedom is equal to the right to oppress their own minorities (their wives and daughters being at the end of the branch).

The thread is about spreading Freedom. One French Revolutionaries, Robespierre, when the National Assembly voted war against roughly all the rest of Europe in order to brake the chains of the enslaved populations and down to the Tyrants etc declared: Nations don’t love armed Prophets. And Robespierre isn’t known to be a softy.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Should freedom be earned or given?

---

Many places where freedom is "given" it is also "earned." I don't think it's a matter of policy that can be decided. Sure, in theory it might be better for a nation to "earn" its freedom but in practice the line is far more blurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Many places where freedom is "given" it is also "earned." I don't think it's a matter of policy that can be decided. Sure, in theory it might be better for a nation to "earn" its freedom but in practice the line is far more blurred.

---

Well then if it is blurred.Who is to decide who earns freedom and who not?No Nation will ever be 100% in agreement whats best for them.So you believe it is better that there is a third party that decides that outside the nation?

Well, let's look at Iraq, as it's the only country this debate currently applies to.

I think we can all agree that Iraq under a peaceful, democratic government would be better than what it had before; a brutal dictator.

Saddam wasn't so much popular as he was feared, from my understanding. Of course he had his fans, but he tortured and murdered dissidents as well as slaughtered members of an uprising after the Gulf War and gassed his own people.

I personally think we all "deserve" a democratic government and a free society - to the extent that there is no better form of government. As such, I think we should support it as much as we can.

I don't think we can just go around overthrowing governments left and right but we aren't doing that. So far we've undone two sovereign nations: Afghanistan and Iraq. The former was primarily retribution for 9/11. The latter was ostensibly about WMD's with the added benefit of removing a truly awful guy from power.

If there was no insurgency or it was crushed rapidly and the transition handled well, Iraq would be one of our greatest successes. Sure, it wouldn't be an iron-clad democratic state, but a great deal better than what it was before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Well then if it is blurred.Who is to decide who earns freedom and who not?No Nation will ever be 100% in agreement whats best for them.So you believe it is better that there is a third party that decides that outside the nation?

---

Your own argument contradicts one of your previous ones. Should we never intervene, for fear of "deciding what's best" for another nation? Should we let Africa go, seeing as if they want freedom and stability they should just get it?

Basically I think spreading democracy (true democracy) is morally right and any seed of such a movement should be encouraged to grow, and if necessary, assisted by removing the weeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Gimme a break. It's a shame nobody helped the Celts. Or the Saxons.

Let's talk modern politics here. The "Invasion" of North America by the "evil" British colonists is a tad silly here.

---

Why? You don't think 'old' politics is still applicable? Then let's scratch history and only focus on tomorrow...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Why? You don't think 'old' politics is still applicable? Then let's scratch history and only focus on tomorrow...

---

In fact I think it would help you if that's the only focus. Considering that there's a lot of legislation that now creates a new frame in wich nations have to respect the wishes of other nations. In such a panorama the vission of international military interventionism falls plain. Should I add IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

In fact I think it would help you if that's the only focus. Considering that there's a lot of legislation that now creates a new frame in wich nations have to respect the wishes of other nations. In such a panorama the vission of international military interventionism falls plain. Should I add IMO.

---

Ok, what happens if our focus is only tomorrow? For one thing, we forget what we did yesterday, and hence keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Plus, a focus only on tomorrow has no perspective. While I agree that you should look at tomorrow, I also think you should bring yesterdays luggage, maybe you'll find the piece of cloth you're just missing! :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Ok, what happens if our focus is only tomorrow? For one thing, we forget what we did yesterday, and hence keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Plus, a focus only on tomorrow has no perspective. While I agree that you should look at tomorrow, I also think you should bring yesterdays luggage, maybe you'll find the piece of cloth you're just missing! :idea2:

---

Well, then we'll just have to discover a new world and encounter natives to be faced with this again. Maybe on Mars, eh? Perhaps polio blankets will also suffice for the little green men who will teach us about space corn. I agree that there was a great injustice done to the natives of the U.S. but that time is long since past, and there are no current parallels to "manifest destiny".

The enforcing of liberty and democracy upon certain countries is comparable with the spread of communism in the 20th century. Who is to decide what ideology is the "correct" one? Certainly not a foreign power.

Additionally, I think that countries will find democracy when they are ready. Stability of government and strength of economy takes priority when starvation and poverty are your primary concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -ThundeR

The enforcing of liberty and democracy upon certain countries is comparable with the spread of communism in the 20th century. Who is to decide what ideology is the "correct" one? Certainly not a foreign power.

---

Well, you can start by what works and what doesn't. Communism doesn't work off of the drawing board. Democracy is doing pretty good - not great, but pretty good. And the most number of countries you could argue have had liberty and democracy "enforced" upon them is two. Just two. And I would argue one of them doesn't count and the other isn't much of a matter of it being "forced" upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -ThundeR

The enforcing of liberty and democracy upon certain countries is comparable with the spread of communism in the 20th century. Who is to decide what ideology is the "correct" one? Certainly not a foreign power.

Additionally, I think that countries will find democracy when they are ready. Stability of government and strength of economy takes priority when starvation and poverty are your primary concerns.

---

Uhm. Let's See. democracy enables you to actually have a conversation such as this. I'm talking democracy only in the political sense. Communism and socialism is primarily an economic institution, and the two concepts are not entirely mutually exclusive. (though the lack of private property ownership and centrally controlled command econmoies due to tend to inhibit poltical freedom as a byproduct)


Why should anyone be denied political freedom? Who is anybody to enforce their political will over another?

After all, that is the central theme of such an argument. Democracy is not the enforcement of a political ideology, it is the empowerment of people to dictate their own lives rather than have their lives dictated for them.


There exists only TWO political ideologies: Political power in the hands of the many (democracy), or political power in the hands of the few (everything else).


How can this discussion even be seriously debated at all? I simply do not understand thjose of you believe that others would desire to be controlled by a dictator, and that this could be the "best" ideology by anyopne other than those who unfairly hold the power. After all, in everything else but democrarcy, the power is held by few and decided by the few. In democracy the people rule rather than be ruled.

That is, in a pure democracy. There can be no pure democracy just as there can be no (lasting) pure autocracy. When in the control of a benevolent dictator, the interest of a nation can be held at utmost regard, whereas in a democracy many people will just vote to satisfy their own interest.

I am not contrasting the ideologies of democracy and socialism; I understand that they are not mutually exclusive. I am comparing the Iron Curtain, largely opposed by the USA, with what I see as a similar growing blanket of democracy, largely advocated by the USA.

My point is that foreign intervention is rarely a good idea. If the people are ready for power then democracy will impose itself; it is almost a law of nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -ThundeR

My point is that foreign intervention is rarely a good idea. If the people are ready for power then democracy will impose itself; it is almost a law of nature.

---

Like in the French revolution, right?

Or in the English revolution?

Or in the Russian revolution?

Even the U.S. almost became a dictatorship following the American revolution.


We must be patient and stay the course. The Iraqis desire self government. They desire political freedom. The desire peace and prosperity under democracy. There may be elements of Sharia Law in their government, and that is certainly their right to impose that on themselves.

Stay the course, have faith in the people of Iraq. They will succeed with our help.
:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Thunder

That is, in a pure democracy. There can be no pure democracy just as there can be no (lasting) pure autocracy. When in the control of a benevolent dictator, the interest of a nation can be held at utmost regard, whereas in a democracy many people will just vote to satisfy their own interest.

---

Firstly, find me some benevolent dictators today. :juggle2:

Secondly, in a democracy the people can choose what matches their interests. This is known as self-determination and is the opposite of interventionism. If we are supporting self-determination, it is hardly interventionist.

I wasn't referring to the current Iraq situation in any of my posts, but indeed the course must be stayed, one can't leave a job half finished.

Quote:

---

Firstly, find me some benevolent dictators today.

---

Pervez Musharraf is arguably one, though elections were held after his coup. It's a challenging task, but I'll find you a few once you find me some benevolent democratically elected heads of government. :P

Pervez Musharraf is arguably one

Would that be President Musharraf whose benevolent dictatorship is summarised as.....
The government's human rights record was poor, and serious problems remained. The following human rights problems were reported:


restrictions on citizens' right to change their government
extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape
poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest, and lengthy pretrial detention
violations of due process and privacy rights
lack of judicial independence
harassment, intimidation, and arrest of journalists
limits on freedom of association, religion, and movement
imprisonment of political leaders
corruption
legal and societal discrimination against women
child abuse
trafficking in women and children, and child prostitution
discrimination against persons with disabilities
indentured, bonded, and child labor
restriction of worker rights

It's quite easy to criticise the running of a 150million+ population. Much of the list above is beyond the control of a single person (Pakistan is a democracy, was loosely categorising Musharraf as a dictator). You could probably go to any non-Western country (and even some Western) and make a similar list, democracy or not.

Meanwhile, you don't see democratically-elected leaders in the Western world taking freedoms away like non-democratic leaders. IE, a stable, developed democratic system with checks and balances will not have the problem of Musharraf, who keeps his country in his fist by force (though he seems to be better then some dictators, maybe). Sure, we can gripe about the freedoms beings taken away by the Bush administration, but they are hardly the gross injustices perpetuated by the leaders of many non-democratic states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -ThundeR

It's probably easier to criticise the running of a 150million+ population. You wont find that sending in any superleader will change most of those problems.

---

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

What?

---

Didn't you know that democracy is bad? Didn't you know that a democratic republic such as the United States is even worse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -ThundeR

It's probably easier to criticise the running of a 150million+ population. You wont find that sending in any superleader will change most of those problems.

---

I wonder if someone understands the concept of the pot calling the kettle black......


Edit:

To cap off the point about this thread, is a simple saying. With Freedom comes responsiblity. Take it to mean what you desire it to mean....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Meanwhile, you don't see democratically-elected leaders in the Western world taking freedoms away like non-democratic leaders. IE, a stable, developed democratic system with checks and balances will not have the problem of Musharraf, who keeps his country in his fist by force (though he seems to be better then some dictators, maybe). Sure, we can gripe about the freedoms beings taken away by the Bush administration, but they are hardly the gross injustices perpetuated by the leaders of many non-democratic states.

---

That's because the Western world is far more socially developed, so many of the problems Musharraf has to deal with are far less commonplace. Which is why I suggested "non-Western democracy".

I'm not sure what you mean by a "non-Western" democracy. Western democracy is far from perfect, but if a "non-Western" one involves curtailing freedoms then it is morally bad and it propagates injustice.

I find it hard to call Pakistan a democracy, because isn't there little to no chance that a new leader will be elected? I thought Musharraf was in there for life...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I find it hard to call Pakistan a democracy, because isn't there little to no chance that a new leader will be elected? I thought Musharraf was in there for life...

---

Or more correctly I image until someone decides to end his regime......:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I wonder if someone understands the concept of the pot calling the kettle black......

---

:inquisitive: I can assure you that I don't...:help: Only wanting to learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

The Athenians of ancient Greece, one of the role models used by the founding fathers, the other being ancient Rome, in the founding of the United States, thought that they could force their democratic ways on many of their neighbors. This led to the long and bloody Peloponnesian Wars. The opposing states, mainly oligarchies, banded together against them with Sparta as their leader. Despite the "worthy ideals of democracy" espoused by Athens, she was rather ruthless in the spreading of her "doctrine". As a matter of course, she would use the refusal of any of her rivals refusal to join her Athenian League as a pretext for invasion, even sacking the Island city state of Mitylene (if memory serves) as an example to others. Her actual goals were actually much more economic, but this is how she deluded herself. Athens ultimately lost the War, after much bloodshed and sacrifice.

---

That's not quite the case. Athens also supported and even installed tyrants and oligarchies when it suited her (cf. US support and sponsoring of right-wing dictatorships). Real politics, classical style. I fail to see how they were deluded by democracy? Both Athens and the US discovered that 'spreading democracy' was not always in their best interests and often created more problems than it solved.

As for Mytilene, a right-wing coup d'etat occurs in one of her valuable and strategically important Aegean allies, sponsored by her great enemy Sparta. Her reaction was quite natural by the standards of the day. All powers respond to protect their interests if they are able.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

That's not quite the case. Athens also supported and even installed tyrants and oligarchies when it suited her (cf. US support and sponsoring of right-wing dictatorships). Real politics, classical style. I fail to see how they were deluded by democracy? Both Athens and the US discovered that 'spreading democracy' was not always in their best interests and often created more problems than it solved.

---

Quite right, but I wasn't saying that Athenians deluded themselves by their style of government. I meant that they deluded themselves into using the excuse that they were only spreading their ideals as a pretext for war, rather than admitting to themselves that it was bald-faced imperialism. I was making a comparison to the current US actions in the east. I oftimes feel that many are deluding themselves in the US in a similar fashion. Why not just call it what it is?

Quote:

---

As for Mytilene, a right-wing coup d'etat occurs in one of her valuable and strategically important Aegean allies, sponsored by her great enemy Sparta. Her reaction was quite natural by the standards of the day. All powers respond to protect their interests if they are able.

---

Agreed, but didn't she sort of sacrifice her own ideals in the process? Many in her assembly argued that this was the case in the debate preceeding the vote to take such an action.

Good post. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Agreed, but didn't she sort of sacrifice her own ideals in the process? Many in her assembly argued that this was the case in the debate preceeding the vote to take such an action.

Good post. :2thumbsup:

---

The debate was concerned with the punishment to be inflicted after suppressing their opponents on the island (initially way out of proportion), not their own right to intervene in their own sphere of influence. Thucydides is showing the degradation of human morality during war, as can be seen with the Spartan decision at Plataea and the Athenians also at Melos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I'm not sure what you mean by a "non-Western" democracy. Western democracy is far from perfect, but if a "non-Western" one involves curtailing freedoms then it is morally bad and it propagates injustice.

---

I'm referring to governments as in Thailand, Malaysia, really any government anywhere not in Europe or North America/Australia etc. has a whole list of traits that we may see as unthinkable. The point I was trying to communicate was that a country has to become pretty rich before a democracy can be productive.

Really. Could you elaborate a little more? Surely a free-market democracy will have faster economic growth than a nationalized police state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

The debate was concerned with the punishment to be inflicted after suppressing their opponents on the island (initially way out of proportion), not their own right to intervene in their own sphere of influence. Thucydides is showing the degradation of human morality during war, as can be seen with the Spartan decision at Plataea and the Athenians also at Melos.

---

Of course. After going back and reviewing Thucydides I realise that I was in error before. Still, the fact that they were in such a debate brings to mind the debates over torture and wether it is legal to keep the non combatant prisoners in Guantanemo. Surely, although Thucidides does not tell us so, it does reveal that there was probably no universal support for intervention in the first place. The fact that some where concerned about the punishment implies that there were "Hawks" and "Doves" among them. Didn't they decide initially to raise the city, then later repented that decision, and sent a fast vessel to stop the sacking only just in time? :sweatdrop: