Spreading Freedom and Democracy

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Red Peasant]

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.

The debate was concerned with the punishment to be inflicted after suppressing their opponents on the island (initially way out of proportion), not their own right to intervene in their own sphere of influence. Thucydides is showing the degradation of human morality during war, as can be seen with the Spartan decision at Plataea and the Athenians also at Melos.

[rotorgun]

The debate was concerned with the punishment to be inflicted after suppressing their opponents on the island (initially way out of proportion), not their own right to intervene in their own sphere of influence. Thucydides is showing the degradation of human morality during war, as can be seen with the Spartan decision at Plataea and the Athenians also at Melos.

Of course. After going back and reviewing Thucydides I realise that I was in error before. Still, the fact that they were in such a debate brings to mind the debates over torture and wether it is legal to keep the non combatant prisoners in Guantanemo. Surely, although Thucidides does not tell us so, it does reveal that there was probably no universal support for intervention in the first place. The fact that some where concerned about the punishment implies that there were "Hawks" and "Doves" among them. Didn't they decide initially to raise the city, then later repented that decision, and sent a fast vessel to stop the sacking only just in time?