The Importance of Democracy

[Redleg]

"Actually trade fits into my arguement very well - attempting to discount it doesn't fit into your arguement very well. Now while Buchanan did indeed focus on warfighting the article itself was not soley on warfighting but how nations interact with each other. Trade is indeed an interaction between nations. Buchanan's article was not just about warfighting - but how nations deal with each other."

I don't consider that trade agreements fit well with Buchanan's argument at all. Attempts to broker trade agreements without reference to internal politics is futile because the agreement will inevitably effect alot of different interests and they will try to influence the process. One of the reasons why WTO negotiation rounds move at such a snail's pace is that there is no point in making a deal that might be rejected by the legislatures of the US, (to a lesser extent) Germany, Japan, etc after their next elections.

As I said, there are some multilateral trade agreements that cover a wide variety of nations but even something as wide as the WTO is not amenable to some countries, and the closer the trade agreement is the closer the countries have to be in ideological terms, both because they won't want a trade agreement if they have widely diverging views about international trade and because it simply won't work if the constitutional structure of their government is not similar. For instance, a system for the regulation of subsidies and countervailing duties just doesn't work if a country has no administrative law system, which alot of countries don't because their state ideology does not contemplate putting any sort of fetters on the discretion of bureaucrats. Also, the success of trade agreements is contingent on the members having an amiable relationship over a period of decades; it takes years to negotiate, pass, and implement a trade agreement and isn't worth embarking on if it is only expected to last a few years.

Buchanan doesn't mention trade but neither does he discount it in his arguement. What Buchanan is talking about is how nations deal with each othr. Buchanan was argueing that idealogical basis for dealing with other nations is not the answer. The article fits into a more areas then just warfighting, even if warfighting is the percieved focus. If your going to read into an article you must look for other things then just what you wish to see.

"Buchanan's arguement was not on short term circumstances - that is the take that you wish to have of it. It speaks of not using idealogy as the sole purpose of dealing with other nations, he uses exambles that one can take for short-sighted positions but that would be a conclusion of the reader not necessarily the author."

It is not simply one of a variety of interpretations open on the words, it is one that follows necessarily. Buchanan says a country should take help from whoever is presently friendly or hostile, which is something that could change overnight. The way he puts the emphasis on warfighting and discounts internal politics also evinces an approach that would have made sense in the era of Clausewitz but is hopelessly outdated now. If one thinks that the only thing that is important in fighting Al Qaeda is to kill as many of them as possible, one could well back an unpopular dictator like Musharraf for being "tough". But if one thinks about how the problem will pan out more than a week in advance one must conclude that that isn't going to produce a satisfactory outcome because Musharraf has been fighting a civil war for years and has achieved nothing except to plunge the US into even deeper unpopularity. If one dared to commit a cardinal sin and consider internal politics as well one would realise that Musharraf probably won't even be there next year and anyone who keeps relying on him will be caught on the wrong side of history.

One that follows necessarily - is not necessarily the only correct answer. Many of your statements come from how you view the article. For instance you got stuck on Western Democracies - something Buchanan mentioned but did not just stick with. And Buchanan does not say a country should take help from whoever is presently friendly or hostile - I believe he considers one should take help from those whose's foriegn policy best matches there own. If a nation is hostile alreadly thier foriegn policy is alreadly at odds. Now Musharraf also had to lossen some of his hold because of his desire to have US aid which has allowed his opposition into power. So while the United States has lost popularity - does that mean it is not meeting its goal of spreading democracy? Now would that make dealing with Musharraf short-sighted because the United States was solely looking at defeating Al Qaeda, or could there be more to the United States policy then meets your eye?

"Now I like to play the insult game with the rest of them - so before talking about reading comprehension problems you might want to check out your own before attempting to insult others concerning what you percieve thiers to be. Rather interesting and amusing that the insult was first given by one that suffers from that problem himself. To give you a clue I provided a color coded statement to demonstrate just one of those errors. So as the saying goes the pot calling the Kettle black."

It's not an insult. If I have to repeat myself over and over again I'll call it as I see it.

But then I guess you didnt realize I was playing your for the fool with my arguement, I rather enjoyed it since the goal was to get you to make several personal attacks not to prove any major point concerning the article. So before you attempt to insult people you might start to realize when people are testing the waters to see how you will react.

Oh its been enjoyable but it seems your just as blind as any other fool who believes they are right and everyone who doesn't agree with them is just flat wrong.

Now its the weekend and I have better things to do then fool around with a narrow mind.