Spreading Freedom and Democracy

[Kagemusha]

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?

[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.

[Justiciar]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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

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?

[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?

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Upxl]

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!

[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.

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?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

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.

[Upxl]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Upxl]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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 ).

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.

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?

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...

[Upxl]

I give up

[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 .

[Reenk Roink]

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

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...

[Justiciar]

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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

That's what I meant.

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

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...

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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