Spreading Freedom and Democracy

[Sjakihata]

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.

[Brenus]

“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.

“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.

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

“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…

“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?
Paris was liberated by the French, thank to Patton who let the 2nd D.B to go to rescue the insurgents...

[Divinus Arma]

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:

“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;

“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?

[Kagemusha]

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. 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!

[Joker85]

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]

“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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

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.

[Sjakihata]

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...

[Soulforged]

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.

[Sjakihata]

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!

[Divinus Arma]

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!

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".

[-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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[-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.

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.

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

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.

[-ThundeR]

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.

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

[Tribesman]

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

[-ThundeR]

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.

[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.

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?

[Redleg]

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?

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....

[-ThundeR]

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".

[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 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...

[Redleg]

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......

[Soulforged]

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

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

[Red Peasant]

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.

[rotorgun]

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?

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.