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.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!