The Importance of Democracy

[Redleg]

"Then one would have to review all of the human history of conflict to find out how many times allies have been made of less then savory nations to defeat a worse threat"

Worse threat? Ha! The USSR was bound to collapse anyway, yet the mujahideen were funded so as to provoke an invasion and initiate a chain of events which has left the country in ruins. But more to the point, they continued to be funded even after the withdrawal of Soviet forces had become inevitable and the Cold War was clearly coming to an end, simply to precipitate a speedy collapse of the Afghan government and send the remaining Soviet advisors out clinging to their helicopters in a final humiliation. This was in spite of the fact that it was obvious that far from installing any sort of stable government (never mind democracy) in its place, they would be at each other's throats and still fighting, and that the country and the border of Pakistan had been turned into a hotbed of a brand of extremism that saw the West and the USSR in much the same light. This is not hindsight- it was blatantly obvious at the time.

Hindsight review is interesting to say the least. Having seen different writings of the time, there was not an understanding that the Soviet Union would collaspe in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Now I also see that you have attempted to spin the statement. So here it is again - how many times have nations banded together to destory a worse threat in history? Here is one prime examble - the United States allied with the Soviet Union to fight against Germany.

"Did it ever occur that when Israel was formed by the United Nations that such organizations would develop? These groups all form not from the incursion of Israel into Lebanon but because Israel exists. Lebanon justs adds fuel to the alreadly existing fire."

No. Only the PLO and PFLP go back that far. The current crop of terrorists, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad exist because of events for which Israel bears substantial responsibility and which your government did nothing to dissuade it from, notably the colonisation of the West Bank and its acknowledged use of collective punishment in military operations. David Ben Gurion said in 1967 that it would doom his country to perpetual war, and it has. It has guaranteed that negotiations always break down and by continuing it up until the present day the Israeli government has made the now moderate PLO look weak, ineffective and useless.

Again not completely true either. I find this rather amusing in a sad way. A spinning of information that contains some truth but leaves significant portions of it out. You might want to check out when the United States became involved with Israel. Richard Nixon is the primary clue that should steer you toward the answer. Now it seems you require that the United States be responsible and accountable for Israel's actions, to use your own assumption standard that you have been protraying. I to find that amusing.

Then again I see your arguement discounts the role certain Palenstine groups have in defeating the peace process. Again I suggest you look the underlying cause of the problem, not just a timeline. The manifesto of Hamas will provide some clue for you also.

Now which government has tried several times to help the peace process in Israel? One could look at the peace accords which brought Israel and Egypt peace. Such a broad stroke of the brush that you are using is full of errors.

Your claim in relation to Hezbollah is still more obviously wrong- it was not created before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Without that invasion it would not exist. Recent poorly executed and indiscriminate military operations (aided and abetted by your government) have helped cement its hold on southern Lebanon.

Actually the claim is correct - you might want to read what is actually written.

Is Israel solely responsible for all this? Obviously not, but it was all foreseeable and foreseen and should have been avoided by any country that counts itself as a sensible democracy, and probably would have been avoided if it had ever received sensible counsel from its biggest ally. The situation there is a failure of, amongst other things, the foreign policy of both countries.

LOL - ah blame the United States for not forcing Israel to comply to several unreasonable demands. Where do Britian and France fall into this equation of yours? I see your attempting to neglect a certain other peace process that worked also.

"Again a rather simplistic reviw of the history of the Persian Gulf."

Not simplistic at all. The Shah of Iran was an unpopular dictator who was obviously going to meet his end eventually. Saddam Hussein was well known to be a murderous tyrant with expansionist aspirations, and yet he received foreign aid right up until the invasion of Kuwait. His final arms spending spree for that conflict was made with a line of credit extended by your government. I can hardly think of a better example of diastrous short termism. At least the collosal Snafu that is Afghanistan took a few years or so to gestate into a haven of anti-Western terrorism.

Again simplistic. I didn't say it wasn't true only a simplistic view. Now look into why the relationships were the way they were. What actions were involved that placed the United States into an alliance with Iraq? Why did the politicial indenties at the time believe this was a good idea? What were the goals that they were attempting to accomplish? What actions were going on that were directly tied to Iran that the United States felt it should support anyone that was an enemy of Iran?

"You would be surprised - Buchanan probably realized this since he was not talking about stable democracies and issues with them. There are a few stable democracies that dont always allow the US to use their air space and are treated still as friends."

The point of Buchanan's article is that a democracy that doesn't help the US government (and he largely seems to count help as meaning help in bombing people) is less use and less worthy as an ally than a dictatorship that does, in other words anyone that gets in the way of carpet bombing isn't a friend. More generally he is saying the US government should simply seek out malleable dictators rather than cultivate relations with single-minded democracies, even though the US has scarcely had one dictatorial ally that didn't eventually turn on it or get overthrown.

Actually there are a few - but dont let that distract you. And I would have to disagree with your point about democracy being of less use and less worthy. What he actually states is "To root one's attitude toward nations based upon their internal politics rather than their foreign policies is ideology." That implies that a nation should deal with other nations based upon how that foreign policy matches there nation and benefits the nation as a whole. Now maybe I read the article from a slightly different viewpoint but I failed to see the quote that only nations that allow you to bomb others by using their airspace are of use in his article.