The Importance of Democracy

[Redleg]

"I am amused - avoiding answering the question is an answer indeed. I would like to see the evidence from the time that the USSR was going to collaspe in the immediate future. Willing to bet it only exists in a few references if it exists at all."

I said it was clearly going to collapse or reform; Gorbachev initiated his policies of perestroika and glasnost with a view of to achieving detente and preserving the state, either he was going to succeed or the country would simply fall apart. Willing to bet it only exists in a few references? How about those same reforms unleashing innumerable stories from the Soviet media and a flood of statistics revealing how dilapidated the country was? When those same statistics showed the economy going backwards in response to Gorbachev's changes, it was clear that the scales were tipping in favour of collapse, because the system was beyond repair.

The very fact that the USSR had decided to withdraw from Afghanistan at the same time made this even more obvious because the stated raison d'etre for intervening in the first place was to prevent society "going backwards" i.e. regressing from socialism. Anyone who understood anything about Soviet ideology and foreign policy knew to take this as reaffirming the implicit admission made in 1980 that there weren't going to be any more interventions to hold the Warsaw Pact together (and in fact the US govt knew how weak the USSR's hold on its Eastern European allies and its own military had become because it was buying weapons for the mujahideen from them, and was already cajoling Soviet republics themselves to break away). Once such an admission had been made, for other countries to continue pumping more weapons and money into inflaming conflict in Afghanistan was, as I said, at best grossly negligent, at worst extremely malevolent.

To bad for your arguement the USSR invasion of Afganstan happened before Gorbachev was in office. It seems you are neglecting a key piece of the time line. All those statistics came available after the invasion and the resulting support of the rebels in Afganstan. I find your arguement full of misinformation based upon the time line of the actual history, especially given that the USSR went into Afganstan in Dec 1979.

The reference is Nazi Germany is inapt. What you are doing is taking a discussion of why making policy purely on the basis of short-term expediency is bad, and trying to turn it into something about "destroying a worse threat". The two are different, do not try to conflate them. Not every alliance with an unsavoury country is to defeat a more unsavoury country, not every policy based on short-term expediency involves such an alliance. In any case I cannot think of worse example than WWII to bring up, as the rationale for fighting Nazism was based on its ideology in the same way that allying with post WWII democracies was based on their ideology, as it was recognised that common ideology generally meant common interests. To the extent that all the WWII Allies were not dedicated to unending military conquest, they had such a concurrence of ideologies and interests.

The alliance is indeed valid since I didnt reference Nazi Germany only the alliance of the United States and the USSR during WW2. Two completely different political idealogies that were at odds even then. But then again there are others that are available in history - many involving the Roman Empire, some involving even more recent historical conflicts - say like Desert Storm where Syria also was part of the collation of forces - that an Egypt. I find your arguement again full of rethoric but no real substance.

"Again you have not addressed the point, I find myself amused by your inability to actually answer the question. For there to be peace both sides have to want it. And we both know from the experience of peace in Israel that neither side really wants peace. Attempting to just point to Israel's fault and ignoring the fault of the other side is rather amusing to me."

Again you haven't read anything I write. I said there were "obviously" "other events which contributed" and "I explicitly disclaimed the notion that Israel is solely responsible for the situation". If you are not going to bother, why should I?

Why should I bother when your arguement is clearly focus on placing blame on one side while ignoring the other contributing factor. I discount opening statements that are directly contradicted by the arguement that follows. Now if there are obviously other events which have a direct contribution to the facts - it makes the your arguement even weaker that you focus on a side bit of the conflict. The direct contributing factors are the two warring fractions and their actions. I also see you don't critize the acts of the neighboring arab nations which also mistreat the Palenstine people and use them as scapegoats. Then there is your omission of which state funds Hezabolh and is also the most likely candidate for the foundation of the group based upon the idealogy mix.

"Tsk Tsk - that wasn't the question. Which nation has tried several times to help the peace process? I don't know of many nations that have even tried."

Tsk tsk saying a few words and holding up a piece of paper isn't trying, it is a token gesture. The US govt potentially has immense bargaining power, but abstains from using it and unreservedly supports one side in everything it does, even where it obviously exacerbates the situation. That sort of brokering is not bona fide and more to the point it is obviously never going to produce results, because it hasn't produced any when done by any country since 1948 and indeed before.

Incorrect - since the peace between Egypt and Israel was directly brokered by the United States. So when one side attempts to reach for peace, and the other side continues to attack - is it the fault of the third party attempting to broker peace or is it the fault of the two warring fractions?

"One sided blame is where most fail when discussing Israel and Palenstine."

See above regarding comprehension problems.

Tsk Tsk a personal arguement - comprehension is not the problem - your arguement is the problem - I discount statements that directly contradict what an individual says following that statement. Your arguement is focused on one aspect - your attempt to ignore or discount all other factors with just one statement, is somewhat evident in your rethoric. When dealing with conflicts you have to have all factors into the equation or the arguement falls flat. The failure of the peace process in the Middle-East between Israel and the Palenstine people is the two warring fractions - attempting to place onous on outside parties is a weak position because one must remove the two primary agents from the equation to make their arguement work.

If I tried to blame Iran for its foundation, funding, providing of material and yes even possible providing men for this terrorist group - I would be expect to be questioned and even corrected on the misconception of such a statement. And yes dear sir, there is even evidence that Iran is involved with Hezabollah - but that does not mean Iran is responsible for the continued violence done by that group against Israel. It only means Hezabollah is responsible for its own actions. Now I could argue that by proxity Iran is also doing the same thing with Hamas - but that would also be a reaching arguement - so I focus on the actual circumstances. The violence in Israel is a direct result of the two warring fractions - all others are just bit players in the violence.

"Amazing since what I stated was in essence exactly what Buchanan's article stated, and that is not the interpation that I partake from his statement."

What I said is a logical and inevitable implication. If foreign policy is determined by short term "national interest" considerations without reference to the political system of the other country, then it necessarily follows that "a democracy that does not give unreserved support to the US government is less use than a dictatorship that does". That is the tenor of his article

That is a far cry from your opening arguement. Does the article explicitly state that a country's worth as an ally is directly a result of its allowing the US to bomb? That discounts our alliance with England, Austriala, Canada, and a whole list of others.

"When Nixon launched his airlift to save Israel in the Yom Kippur War, autocratic Portugal let us use the Azores. Democratic France denied Reagan over-flight permission in the 1986 raid on Libya. Two brave U.S. pilots died as a result."

"When McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, British and French ships were unloading goods in Haiphong, while Ferdinand Marcos and the South Korean generals sent troops to stand with us and fight beside us."

"Gen. Washington, at war with democratic Great Britain, is said to have danced a jig when he heard we had Louis XVI as an ally. During our Civil War, Britain built blockade-runners for the Confederacy, while the czar docked his ships in Union harbors. Russia "was our friend/When the world was our foe," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes."

"
I find this discussion rather amusing given the spin that you are doing concerning what he stated."

It is hardly spin. As I said, he focuses heavily on wartime alliances.

Oh since he focus on wartime alliances its about bombing, I find that an amazing leap. I see that he deals with how countries deal with each other - for instance use his McCain arguement - British and French unloading in Haiphong - are not Britian and France still allies with the United States - in France's case more toward the friendly status then any thing else. That alone defeats your arguement.

Trade agreements and foreign aid agreements also fall into the area in which is discussed in the article - now the exambles were not directly used, but one could also imply that area into the concept present.

NAFTA comes to mind concerning just that.

Have a nice day with your position of negative view point.