NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about the Iraq war lately and the reason often given for it. That is "to free the Iraqi people". Now this is blatantly false (it's about creating a pro-American state in an oil-rich and strategically important region of the world) but there's no denying that there are some, who support the Iraq war, who purely believe in spreading democracy through military means.

I have come around to the idea that militant democratism such as this may actually be a good idea. For evidence, I point to western Europe. If it was not for the aggressive military invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe by America, Britain and others in 1944-45, the continent would have remained under the Hitler jackboot for several years, only to come under Soviet oppression a few years later. But thanks to that intervention, Western Europe enjoyed a resurgence and became the world's greatest economic block and haven for human rights.

Of course, the classic first argument against this is the price in civilian casualties. It is certainly heartbreaking that people, innocent people die even in causes that could be considered just, such as the liberation of Europe. For example, in the first few weeks of the Allied invasion, roughly 20,000 French civilians died as a result of Allied actions. Hundreds of thousands more died in France, Germany, Italy and other countries due to Allied bombing.

But who would say that the alternative to this could have been better? In short, this was a necessary evil.

It is feasible that the same principles could be applied to Iraq, Sudan and other countries that suffer from genocide. It is the use of one evil to defeat an even greater evil.

I have some reservations about this comparison however:

I do not believe that every culture in the world is ready to embrace democracy. This runs counter to what many people in power in various imperial western nations (Britain, USA) have thought in the past, but I think the record speaks for itself. Many attempts to export democracy in the past have been failures.

I think a key flaw in the comparison between the Middle East and Europe, is that the people of Europe had had democracy before, so the culture was well adjusted and preferential to it. In contrast, most Middle East, Asian and African nations have never really known democracy. I could argue that it is necessary for the people of a nation to realise when they are ready for democracy, and fight for it themselves. In this case of a popular uprising against a despot, the west should lend logistical support to the pro-democracy revolutionary movement.

Transforming a society into a democratic society is more than changing its Constitution and government. It is a deep change in the belief systems of its people - a change that runs contrary to many religious belief systems (whose world views may not have changed since the rise of the Ottoman Empire), and contrary to many social systems (whose roots are also far in the past).

Equality for women, for example, is anathema to these cultures, and is as alien an idea as putting men on the Moon.

The family clans, the religious heterodoxy enshrined in permanently warring sects, the appeal of a strongman dictator - these are all ideas that cannot be removed simply by drafting a Constitution.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try. But you will meet with resistance. In order for the attempt to succeed, it has to be a long term plan spanning decades of occupation and education, for the only hope you have is to educate the youth of that country, and raise them in a new atmosphere and a new culture. You won't be converting most of their parents.

With countries that are closer to Western norms, it's easier, and takes far less time. With countries that are further away, it might take a hundred years.

Aside from these, the concept of militant democracy is not necessarily the evil it is often portrayed to be, in my opinion.


Discuss. And you bastards had better not turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican flamefest.

it's about creating a pro-American state in an oil-rich and strategically important region of the world
Explain why gas prices are so high.

I don't think it should be called a 'necessary evil'. I don't see anything evil about spreading democracy, bringing justice, and saving innocent people from genocide.

Oh, and make no mistake, I'm still ultra-liberal.

I don't think it should be called a 'necessary evil'. I don't see anything evil about spreading democracy, bringing justice, and saving innocent people from genocide.
Did you even read the post? That's covered by the "necessary" part. The whole killing thousands of innocent civilians is the "evil" part.

Explain why gas prices are so high.

I don't think it should be called a 'necessary evil'. I don't see anything evil about spreading democracy, bringing justice, and saving innocent people from genocide.

Demand. Supply and demand. That and Iraq is currently producing the equvilent of diddly-pennies on the market because of insurgent attacks.

Genocide? Debatable, and if they wouldn't have revolted against Saddam none of that would have happened.

Oh, and make no mistake, I'm still ultra-liberal.
Huh?
I thought you self-described as a 'centrist libertarian'?
:confused:

Huh?
I thought you self-described as a 'centrist libertarian'?

Meh, close enough. They mean pretty much the same thing to me. (I don't instinctively think liberal=socialist.)

Now can we please discuss the topic? That was probably the longest post I've ever written!

First of all, the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil. Of course, it had little to do with liberation as well. It was simply because Saddam Hussein was a terrorist sponsor, violator of international sanctions, and developer of WMD. Of course, we found out that he was no where near as far along with WMD as we thought, but he was developing them.

I personally, am a proud Neo-Conservative. Every man, woman, and child has the fundamental, God given right to freedom. It sickens me every time I hear about some tin-pot dictator oppressing his people. Freedom is also universal. It doesn't matter if you are black, Arab, or white; freedom applies to all.

And if military action is required for freedom, then so be it.

I think a key flaw in the comparison between the Middle East and Europe, is that the people of Europe had had democracy before, so the culture was well adjusted and preferential to it. In contrast, most Middle East, Asian and African nations have never really known democracy. I could argue that it is necessary for the people of a nation to realise when they are ready for democracy, and fight for it themselves. In this case of a popular uprising against a despot, the west should lend logistical support to the pro-democracy revolutionary movement.I don't know that you're right in saying that the lack of previous democratic experience is a major difference. The HAS to be a first time for everything, and the circumstances necesitating democratic revolution are nigh in many areas now, be it due to societal change in the population, or military threat, just like it was in Europe sixty years ago.
France and England had been democratic for many years, so lets leave them for now.
Look at Germany. It had experienced a brief period of democracy through the Weimar Republic, but previously, had been an autocracy. Ausria-Hungary was anything but democratic, Italy was still virtually Fuedal, and I doubt that many other countries had any democratic systems, though I don't know for a fact. These countries democratized because they were forced to militarily. Other countries, like India, Taiwan, and south Korea became democracies due to other reasons. None had previous experience.
People are pretty smart. They know what they have, they can compare to other places, and they know what they want. It's only a matter of time until people will rise up and demand better. Now this isn't to say that militarily democratizing doesn't work, it can; in any case however, countried cannot experience democracy until its given a very messy and dysfunctional first shot - then improvements can be made.

t was simply because Saddam Hussein was a terrorist sponsor, violator of international sanctions, and developer of WMD. Of course, we found out that he was no where near as far along with WMD as we thought, but he was developing them.

Proof for those allegations (except the ones about sanctions) have never been presented.

Neo-conservatism isn't simply a policy of militarism abroad, it's about the creation of myths to sustain the populace at large and keep them docile. It's not like this is even a secret - just read the works of Leo Strauss, the original neocon.

I don't know that you're right in saying that the lack of previous democratic experience is a major difference. The HAS to be a first time for everything, and the circumstances necesitating democratic revolution are nigh in many areas now, be it due to societal change in the population, or military threat, just like it was in Europe sixty years ago.
France and England had been democratic for many years, so lets leave them for now.
Look at Germany. It had experienced a brief period of democracy through the Weimar Republic, but previously, had been an autocracy. Ausria-Hungary was anything but democratic, Italy was still virtually Fuedal, and I doubt that many other countries had any democratic systems, though I don't know for a fact. These countries democratized because they were forced to militarily. Other countries, like India, Taiwan, and south Korea became democracies due to other reasons. None had previous experience.
People are pretty smart. They know what they have, they can compare to other places, and they know what they want. It's only a matter of time until people will rise up and demand better. Now this isn't to say that militarily democratizing doesn't work, it can; in any case however, countried cannot experience democracy until its given a very messy and dysfunctional first shot - then improvements can be made.
These democracies all came about by a movement from within the country to overthrow the current ruler. People need to realize democracy for themselves, someone from that country needs to lead the revolt (warlike or peaceful) for the masses to accept it. After all, democracy is a huge change. It's something we take for granted, but for people who have lived in feudal societies for generations, it's scary.

Foreign power will be looked at as an invading force, no matter how benign it's purpose is.

I don't know that you're right in saying that the lack of previous democratic experience is a major difference. The HAS to be a first time for everything, and the circumstances necesitating democratic revolution are nigh in many areas now, be it due to societal change in the population, or military threat, just like it was in Europe sixty years ago.
France and England had been democratic for many years, so lets leave them for now.

Look at Germany. It had experienced a brief period of democracy through the Weimar Republic, but previously, had been an autocracy. Ausria-Hungary was anything but democratic, Italy was still virtually Fuedal, and I doubt that many other countries had any democratic systems, though I don't know for a fact. These countries democratized because they were forced to militarily. Other countries, like India, Taiwan, and south Korea became democracies due to other reasons. None had previous experience.

People are pretty smart. They know what they have, they can compare to other places, and they know what they want. It's only a matter of time until people will rise up and demand better. Now this isn't to say that militarily democratizing doesn't work, it can; in any case however, countried cannot experience democracy until its given a very messy and dysfunctional first shot - then improvements can be made.
Good points, though Germany did have a popularly elected parliament between the 1870s and 1914.

But yeah you make a good point that democracy can be successfully forced on countries. You're also right on the people knowing what they want, which may be democracy, which connects to my point about popular uprising.

Neo-conservatism isn't simply a policy of militarism abroad, it's about the creation of myths to sustain the populace at large and keep them docile. It's not like this is even a secret - just read the works of Leo Strauss, the original neocon.
Decieving the people is not unique to neoconservatism. I agree that this is an ideology that may be executed by an elite which knows better than a domestic population. Do you think that the decision to go to Iraq would have been accepted at the time if he didn't make out that Iraq posed a threat?

The neoconservative adventure in Iraq is proof that ideology has no place in foreign policy. There are so many variables in international affairs that it's impossible to say "military action to spread democracy and democratic values is always justified and always has a positive outcome" or "tyrants must always be met with military force." Previous American administrations have always worked from pragmatism in foreign policy, playing the tough guy when they thought it would be advantageous, and using negotiations, trade and other forms of "soft power" when that seemed to better fit the situation. The reason Bush's foreign policy has been such a failure is that he and his appointees have forsaken this tradition in favor of an academic idea cooked up by some fringe think tanks.

Proof for those allegations (except the ones about sanctions) have never been presented.
Actually, it's been proven extensively. Saddam was a backer of Ansar Al-Islam (Had several camps in Iraq, including Salmon Pack, which was a training center for hijackings) and funded Palestinian Suicide Bombers.

As for WMD, David Kay's report covers that extensively. Saddam was adamant on obtaining WMDs, but simply had not reached the point of having significant stockpiles when we invaded.

Decieving the people is not unique to neoconservatism. I agree that this is an ideology that may be executed by an elite which knows better than a domestic population. Do you think that the decision to go to Iraq would have been accepted at the time if he didn't make out that Iraq posed a threat?
Agreed on deception not being unique to neocons. However, the philosophy is specifically rooted in the weaving of myths.

Iraq - yes, naturally Saddam had to be portrayed as a threat. However, this was part of a long-term strategy. Neoconservatism as we know it is fifty years in the making.

Good points, though Germany did have a popularly elected parliament between the 1870s and 1914.

But yeah you make a good point that democracy can be successfully forced on countries. You're also right on the people knowing what they want, which may be democracy, which connects to my point about popular uprising.
the reason the administration tends to give is that the Iraqis want freedom and democracy, and were just giving it to them. so why dont we let them choose their own leaders? instead we say that 1/3 of the assembly must be women and we force them to include a large amount of Sunni's in the government. if the people wish to vote for an all male assembly why not let them? if the Sunni's dont get enough votes to hold their offices, why should they get them?
conservatives tend to be very against affirmative action, but what the hell do you think this is? not only that, but its a foreign country imposing it.

Thoughts on neo-conservatism...

I really try not to think about such things. I just wish I could close my eyes and make it go into the corn field.

The Prince discusses how best to rule nations that have been conquered. To rule a nation with a radically different government type than it is used to requires drastic measures. To avoid quoting, I'll simply paraphrase.

Rule kingdoms with kings, republics should be ruled by the people. Don't drastically change the method of government if you are not prepared to a) live there yourself or b) raze the place to the ground and start over.

If you look at history, revolutionary new governments are notoriously unstable, frequently short-lived, and rarely successful in the long term; they revert back to old ways and customs before too long.

Those cases where the change successfully took place the new government typically had to destroy all vestigies of the previous government and shatter the populace's view of reality. Look at Japan and Germany in WW2, they were utterly destroyed, and thus capable of being introduced to change.

In this sense, the neo-con ideal of military promotion of idealology is quite simply doomed from the start. What successes they have are going to be limited to nations that; a) we create large colonies in for the sake of administrating the new government. b) completely destroy the government and scatter the population.

It could be argued that Afganistan was close to "destroyed" already, but I remind people that the nation had existed in that state since the original Afgan war with Russia. Both Afganistan and Iraq had grown increasingly used to their methods of government.

Neocons? what is that? a new form of Conservative? what? a Liberal Conservative ?

We invaded Iraq because Saddam attacked NYC, and had all of his nuke missiles pointed at Washington.

the reason the administration tends to give is that the Iraqis want freedom and democracy, and were just giving it to them. so why dont we let them choose their own leaders? instead we say that 1/3 of the assembly must be women and we force them to include a large amount of Sunni's in the government. if the people wish to vote for an all male assembly why not let them? if the Sunni's dont get enough votes to hold their offices, why should they get them?
conservatives tend to be very against affirmative action, but what the hell do you think this is? not only that, but its a foreign country imposing it.

For the same reason that the gym teachers in first grade force the kids to play with rules and assign the teams. It teaches them what the game is suppose to look like. Hopefully, by the time they are all in 3rd grade, they'll be able to do some of it for themselves.

(Food for thought: how many years after WWII officially ended were American soldiers and diplomats still in charge of Japan and Germany? Why do people think that it would be any faster in Iraq and Afganistan?)

Why the neo-cons are a threat to the Republic.

1. Neo-conservativism is detrimental to the health of this republic by covering up real intentions through using lies thus removing "the cause" for war to our troops when it is disproven as false. Regarding the Iraq war, it would NOT have been wrong had the neo-con fascists not lied about the real intentions for war.

I am not pro-peace. I am pro-CONSTITUTION. In this respect, the Bush administration sidelined it and completely made an illigitimate war by ignoring BOTH the Constitution and the War Powers Act. If you are going to make war, take the representatives of both houses into a non-public meeting and discuss your case. If they agree to declare war, then its a legitimate war. This was not done, AND we disrespected allies along the way due to incompetent leadership.

If there should have been a war after Afganistan, it should have been against North Korea which WAS a bigger threat at the time, more proof of selling missle technology on the black market, and a bigger problem in GENERAL compared to Iraq. Furthermore, it would have PROVEN this is a war on Terrorism than a war against Muslims.

2. The Neo-cons gain their base from the ignorant members of the religious right which ends up making the movement anti-first ammendment due to the "No Establishment" clause irking the religious right. You have ultra-libs attacking the second ammendment, well now we have another threat of the Neo-cons attacking the first ammendment. (Sanitorum or Frist themselves implied that the first ammendment was just an ammendment and not part of the original Constitution which basicly results in a Neo-con attack on the first.)

3. They are extremists. Moderates need to make the tough decisions because they find the middle ground and will LISTEN TO REASON. Neo-cons are extremists in the nature that they completely attack other Americans as traitors for LEGITIMATE claims. (Iraq war, abortion and gay rights being a state issue, and such.)

4. They are NOT real conservatives. Real conservatives have a sense to PROTECT or CONSERVE the Constitutional principles the nation was founded. These guys in general don't care. As long as you don't disagree with them, they don't consider you a conservative. Which is funny.. ha ha.. because they are completely megalomaniac without being really pro-military. Ha ha.

5. Real conservatives want ANY American citizen of proper age to be armed and educated in gun ettiqutte and handling. We prefer the military be strong AND there be strong militia. We also want a strong military at home to defend and deter any attack against our soverienty. The Neo-con fascists want GLOBAL American military might with a ridiculously small military force of only volenteers.

6. They are in complete power and yet we have only become weaker as a country. Our economy is being ignored. Our boarders are unprotected. And all our jobs are going overseas. Can you REALLY blame liberals at this point? No. But you DAMNED be sure to blame the neo-con fascists.

It is increasingly alarming how these idiots are running the country. They are the bad managers you do NOT want running your business because they get rid of anybody who doesn't agree with them, even if they have justifyable complaints.

DOWN WITH THE DAMNED NEO-CON Fascist! Huzzah for the patriot John McCain!

The neoconservative adventure in Iraq is proof that ideology has no place in foreign policy. There are so many variables in international affairs that it's impossible to say "military action to spread democracy and democratic values is always justified and always has a positive outcome" or "tyrants must always be met with military force." Previous American administrations have always worked from pragmatism in foreign policy, playing the tough guy when they thought it would be advantageous, and using negotiations, trade and other forms of "soft power" when that seemed to better fit the situation. The reason Bush's foreign policy has been such a failure is that he and his appointees have forsaken this tradition in favor of an academic idea cooked up by some fringe think tanks.Just in case you didn't read it the first time. great points.

DOWN WITH THE DAMNED NEO-CON Fascist! Huzzah for the patriot John McCain!
Don't go into flaming.

You cannot bring democracy about with an outside military force. You may be able to set up a pseudo-democracy with the citizenry voting, but remember that they had "elections" when Saddam was in power.

What we must do is put economic pressure on the totalitarian governments and provide economic support to the people. Only through taking the wealth out of the hand of the government and putting in the hands of the people will the people experience the autonomy and power over government that they need to truly utilize a democracy.

Don't go into flaming.

I genuinely believe they are hurting our Republic. I have seen no good come from their leadership, so to bad for you.

we disrespected allies along the way due to incompetent leadership.

Enforcing UN law is incompetent? Iraq under Saddam Hussein violated 17 UN resolutions. The French, Russians, Germans, and all of the rest of Europe should be in Iraq enforcing the law, and then they can do something about Sudan.

You cannot bring democracy about with an outside military force. You may be able to set up a pseudo-democracy with the citizenry voting, but remember that they had "elections" when Saddam was in power.

What we must do is put economic pressure on the totalitarian governments and provide economic support to the people. Only through taking the wealth out of the hand of the government and putting in the hands of the people will the people experience the autonomy and power over government that they need to truly utilize a democracy.Well, though gradual transitions are probably best, first you have to find a dictator nice enough to co-operate, then find a way to exert said 'pressure' without a) a military threat or b) pushing the entire population into poverty. Then hope that some other deseperate faction doesn't take over just when you were hoping everything would go well. Your scenario sounds nice, but try implementing it.

And what about Germany and Japan? those democracies were brought in by an outside military force, though like Nicolo said, the utter destruction of their previous regimes, and to a certain extent, political cultures were necessary first. The monetary, time, and human tolls for that type of thing isn't really what most Westerners want to consider now.

Enforcing UN law is incompetent? Iraq under Saddam Hussein violated 17 UN resolutions. The French, Russians, Germans, and all of the rest of Europe should be in Iraq enforcing the law, and then they can do something about Sudan.

I REALLY don't care about the damned UN. But what I was talking about was in regards to the retaliatory behavior displayed by members of the administration. If you ARE going to play fiddle with the UN however, Israel has violated UN resolutions as well, yet we play unbiased favorites with them to.

Remember. I am a CONSERVATIVE (Paleo-conservative). I don't LIKE the UN. But I don't like politicians of ANY party pulling this behavior. Don't take me for some damned Democrate like Kennedy or that sort. I hate ANY corrupt politician. Kennedy and Delay and etc.

If you plan to have a powerful global military however, you can NOT be attacking your allies like idiots. Neo-cons are damned idiots, plain and simple.

You know, It's kind of sad the small scope and perhaps arrogance we have in the post-modern world. Here we are, obsessed with politics and a shitty little war in the desert that seems to enrage the ideologically dogmatic. Is the insignificance of Iraq, Bush, the Neocons, and such completely lost on you guys? I mean, for thousands of years people have been doing everything in there power to get an excuse to carve each other to pieces for glory, profit, or power, war has always been old men talking and young men dying, and indeed "In war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC). Yet still, with all that considered centuries ago you all have to get bitchy about just ONE MORE itty bitty instance of bloodshed motivated by the same shit that has existed for thousands of years. Where the hell is this progress people like to tout?

Oh ya, and one for the road, "It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish" - Aeschylus. Old tricks still work on those who are too damn self absorbed to consider the past. :rolleyes:

You know, It's kind of sad the small scope and perhaps arrogance we have in the post-modern world. Here we are, obsessed with politics and a shitty little war in the desert that seems to enrage the ideologically dogmatic. Is the insignificance of Iraq, Bush, the Neocons, and such completely lost on you guys? I mean, for thousands of years people have been doing everything in there power to get an excuse to carve each other to pieces for glory, profit, or power, war has always been old men talking and young men dying, and indeed "In war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC). Yet still, with all that considered centuries ago you all have to get bitchy about just ONE MORE itty bitty instance of bloodshed motivated by the same shit that has existed for thousands of years. Where the hell is this progress people like to tout?

Oh ya, and one for the road, "It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish" - Aeschylus. Old tricks still work on those who are too damn self absorbed to consider the past. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but our Constitution provides a GOOD allowance for war without having to resort to outright deception of the American public. If it is in our country's BEST intrest to go to war and our representatives agree in acceptable terms (number of votes) then we CAN go to war legally by our OWN legal system.

This is NOT a damned monarchy. Our people have a right to not be sent off to ridiculous wars for reasons we do NOT understand, or reasons that are false.

Your complaint is damned invalid. CUZ GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID SO!

You know, It's kind of sad the small scope and perhaps arrogance we have in the post-modern world. Here we are, obsessed with politics and a shitty little war in the desert that seems to enrage the ideologically dogmatic. Is the insignificance of Iraq, Bush, the Neocons, and such completely lost on you guys? I mean, for thousands of years people have been doing everything in there power to get an excuse to carve each other to pieces for glory, profit, or power, war has always been old men talking and young men dying, and indeed "In war, truth is the first casualty." - Aeschylus, Greek tragic dramatist (525 BC - 456 BC). Yet still, with all that considered centuries ago you all have to get bitchy about just ONE MORE itty bitty instance of bloodshed motivated by the same shit that has existed for thousands of years. Where the hell is this progress people like to tout?

Oh ya, and one for the road, "It is a profitable thing, if one is wise, to seem foolish" - Aeschylus. Old tricks still work on those who are too damn self absorbed to consider the past. :rolleyes:If you want to look at hisory as an inevitable cycle and true 'progress' as impossible, fine, no one can stop you.

Wars, deception, death, and the quest for "glory, profit, power" have existed throughout history, and probably always will, BUT so have compassion diplomacy, and protest. If you think war is inevitable, than us "getting bitchy" is likewise. If you look at present events in the very big picture, you risk sinking into indifferance, or even nihilism, a state of mind I would not choose to be in.

It sounds corny, but we can make a difference to people's lives in the way we behave, spend our money, and vote. How can you deny that that's signinficant? In the ulimate picture, this planet is an infantesimal dust speck among millions of stars, and most likely thousands of other sentient species. Your perspective might be correct, but its unproductive in the extreme.

Sorry, but our Constitution provides a GOOD allowance for war without having to resort to outright deception of the American public. If it is in our country's BEST intrest to go to war and our representatives agree in acceptable terms (number of votes) then we CAN go to war legally by our OWN legal system.

This is NOT a damned monarchy. Our people have a right to not be sent off to ridiculous wars for reasons we do NOT understand, or reasons that are false.

Your complaint is damned invalid. CUZ GEORGE WASHINGTON SAID SO!

In the direct application of the Constitution one must take into consideration a few things. First, the people who wrote it did not trust the people it would be governing in the years to come. Second, getting people to agree with you is hard when the ONLY forms of mass communication are newspapers and public addresses (covered by newspapers and most certainly not ALL newspapers.) Times change, massive amounts of information allow for massive amounts of misinformation, deception will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

Furthermore, we have the votes from the representatives, and depending on what your interpritation of our country's BEST intrest, we have that too. We did legally go to war by our OWN legal system, man.

Even futhermore, there was no draft of which I am aware, our people DO have the right to not get sent to war. The ones that are at war waved that right. This has nothing to do with monarchy man, it happens under every system of government.

Closing line, no comment. :p

If you want to look at hisory as an inevitable cycle and true 'progress' as impossible, fine, no one can stop you.

Progress is not impossible; it just isn't what people make it out to be. For instance, progress brings us bigger, better guns, it doesn't render them obsolete.

Wars, deception, death, and the quest for "glory, profit, power" have existed throughout history, and probably always will, BUT so have compassion diplomacy, and protest. If you think war is inevitable, than us "getting bitchy" is likewise. If you look at present events in the very big picture, you risk sinking into indifferance, or even nihilism, a state of mind I would not choose to be in.

Yes, and compassion, diplomacy, and protest have not put an end to Wars, deception, death, and the quest for "glory, profit, power." What I personally advocate is coming to terms with our existence, not denouncing it left, right and center because of petty ideology. I firmly believe that virtue is the mean of two vices, that by balancing war with compassion (and just about everything else) instead of galvanizing them into extreme opposition we can create a better society. I think that intemperate passion and zeal without reason and "taking the big picture" is a disaster waiting to happen. Hardly nihilism.

It sounds corny, but we can make a difference to people's lives in the way we behave, spend our money, and vote. How can you deny that that's signinficant? In the ulimate picture, this planet is an infantesimal dust speck among millions of stars, and most likely thousands of other sentient species. Your perspective might be correct, but its unproductive in the extreme.

Not corny at all, I firmly believe in the vote and that "cynicism is the intellectual cripples substitute for intelligence." That choice is hardly insignificant, just misguided and over hyped. ;)

Good good, thanks for the clarification.

In the direct application of the Constitution one must take into consideration a few things. First, the people who wrote it did not trust the people it would be governing in the years to come. Second, getting people to agree with you is hard when the ONLY forms of mass communication are newspapers and public addresses (covered by newspapers and most certainly not ALL newspapers.) Times change, massive amounts of information allow for massive amounts of misinformation, deception will not be going anywhere anytime soon.

Furthermore, we have the votes from the representatives, and depending on what your interpritation of our country's BEST intrest, we have that too. We did legally go to war by our OWN legal system, man.

Even futhermore, there was no draft of which I am aware, our people DO have the right to not get sent to war. The ones that are at war waved that right. This has nothing to do with monarchy man, it happens under every system of government.

Closing line, no comment. :p

Actually it happened. Bush demanded to Richard Clarke and other intelligence analysts to cook up a link between Iraq and Al-Queda. I don't know if you noticed, but the reasons for going into Iraq were different before the war started than they are now. There IS evidence to show that the intent to go to war to Iraq was premeditated before even 9/11.

Second, Bush DID dodge the war powers act for Iraq. Congress MUST approve of any foriegn placement of troops in a military action every 60 days which is not happening. He doesn't have to give the PUBLIC the case. He has to basicly give the case to the Congressmen.

I was thinking about the Iraq war lately and the reason often given for it. That is "to free the Iraqi people". Now this is blatantly false (it's about creating a pro-American state in an oil-rich and strategically important region of the world) but there's no denying that there are some, who support the Iraq war, who purely believe in spreading democracy through military means.

Which I have found funny. Though it is partially right, as I will lay out in abit.


I have come around to the idea that militant democratism such as this may actually be a good idea. For evidence, I point to western Europe. If it was not for the aggressive military invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe by America, Britain and others in 1944-45, the continent would have remained under the Hitler jackboot for several years, only to come under Soviet oppression a few years later. But thanks to that intervention, Western Europe enjoyed a resurgence and became the world's greatest economic block and haven for human rights.

And it did work well. For a reason.


Of course, the classic first argument against this is the price in civilian casualties. It is certainly heartbreaking that people, innocent people die even in causes that could be considered just, such as the liberation of Europe. For example, in the first few weeks of the Allied invasion, roughly 20,000 French civilians died as a result of Allied actions. Hundreds of thousands more died in France, Germany, Italy and other countries due to Allied bombing.

The cost of freedom, has always been bloodshed; you can't peruse the great revolutions of Britain, America, or France without seeing bloodshed. Freedom does come at a price.


But who would say that the alternative to this could have been better? In short, this was a necessary evil.

This, along with the revolutions are a necessary evil. This is an aspect that is right.


It is feasible that the same principles could be applied to Iraq, Sudan and other countries that suffer from genocide. It is the use of one evil to defeat an even greater evil.

To some extent, however, I do not think we should be running around engaging other countries in warfare, to further democracy; It's one thing to give war-conquered state democracy, and to actually run around spreading it through war-fare. I think it's far more a matter of ethics. Should we be making private determinations of democratic levels of other nations, and going to war with states that do not measure up, merely because they do not subscribe to our levels? I think there has to be far more reason than that for warfare... The neo-con travesty is enough for me on this democratic-war arena.


I have some reservations about this comparison however:

I do not believe that every culture in the world is ready to embrace democracy. This runs counter to what many people in power in various imperial western nations (Britain, USA) have thought in the past, but I think the record speaks for itself. Many attempts to export democracy in the past have been failures.

I think a key flaw in the comparison between the Middle East and Europe, is that the people of Europe had had democracy before, so the culture was well adjusted and preferential to it. In contrast, most Middle East, Asian and African nations have never really known democracy. I could argue that it is necessary for the people of a nation to realise when they are ready for democracy, and fight for it themselves. In this case of a popular uprising against a despot, the west should lend logistical support to the pro-democracy revolutionary movement.

Aside from these, the concept of militant democracy is not necessarily the evil it is often portrayed to be, in my opinion.

You're right on all of this, which is the problem. While war-fare can lead to the freedom of another nation, once raveged in tyrany. This does not mean that all tyranical states should be taken to war.

If I'm "nice" and "democratic" and have a gun, does that mean I can use it on people who are "mean" and "call me names"? No it does not, and it shouldn't between nations either.... Yes, we should help create democratic government in nations we defeat to make them better places.... But we should merely go to war, as some people think, to merely "spread democracy". It just does not always suceed, and we can't act as if it will.

It's a matter of ballance... And reasoning... I think the people wanted to run around and spread democracy in every nation accross the planet at the end of a gun, are loonies.


Discuss. And you bastards had better not turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican flamefest.

If I ever claim to be a Dem or Rep, report that my account has been hacked to the mods....

Not all cultures and societies are ready for Western style democracy. Many of these cultures are products of essentially 16th century societies that were subjugated and abused for decades under colonialism, followed by decades of abuse by dictatorships and/or Communist governments during the Cold War, and in some cases further abused by civil war and corporate exploitation.

While it is possible to occupy such a country in a very short period of time, and regardless of its previous military capacity, remove its government and hold elections, that does not make the country a democracy.

It can have a Constitution, elections, and elected leaders, and still not be a democracy.

Even if there's no insurgency, it's not a democracy.

Transforming a society into a democratic society is more than changing its Constitution and government. It is a deep change in the belief systems of its people - a change that runs contrary to many religious belief systems (whose world views may not have changed since the rise of the Ottoman Empire), and contrary to many social systems (whose roots are also far in the past).

Equality for women, for example, is anathema to these cultures, and is as alien an idea as putting men on the Moon.

The family clans, the religious heterodoxy enshrined in permanently warring sects, the appeal of a strongman dictator - these are all ideas that cannot be removed simply by drafting a Constitution.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try. But you will meet with resistance. In order for the attempt to succeed, it has to be a long term plan spanning decades of occupation and education, for the only hope you have is to educate the youth of that country, and raise them in a new atmosphere and a new culture. You won't be converting most of their parents.

With countries that are closer to Western norms, it's easier, and takes far less time. With countries that are further away, it might take a hundred years.

Should we try? Not in all cases. It should, however, be something that the United Nations attempts to address - if more countries were democratic and more countries had similar cultural norms, and more countries were equal participants in a fair system of international trade and prosperity, there would be far less room in this world for future war and the terrorist actions of malcontents.

If you ARE going to play fiddle with the UN however, Israel has violated UN resolutions as well, yet we play unbiased favorites with them to.

Remember. I am a CONSERVATIVE (Paleo-conservative). I don't LIKE the UN. But I don't like politicians of ANY party pulling this behavior. Don't take me for some damned Democrate like Kennedy or that sort. I hate ANY corrupt politician. Kennedy and Delay and etc.

If you plan to have a powerful global military however, you can NOT be attacking your allies like idiots. Neo-cons are damned idiots, plain and simple.

Yes, we all know the UN is the biggest bunch of anti-semites on earth. Yet another reason we're unliked in the UN.

Suuuuuuurrrrrre you are. I'm a LIBERAL (retro-liberal <- I can invent terms too!). I believe in standing up to evil like FDR, Truman and JFK. You neo-Chamberlains can NOT keep taking it like the French you "damned idiots".

You further my other assumptions SP with your condescending view that "some cultures" aren't capable of democracy. I'm sure nobody thought a backwards imperial feudal state was ready either but Japan seems to be handling it well.

Yes, we all know the UN is the biggest bunch of anti-semites on earth. Yet another reason we're unliked in the UN.

Suuuuuuurrrrrre you are. I'm a LIBERAL (retro-liberal <- I can invent terms too!). I believe in standing up to evil like FDR, Truman and JFK. You neo-Chamberlains can NOT keep taking it like the French you "damned idiots".

You further my other assumptions SP with your condescending view that "some cultures" aren't capable of democracy. I'm sure nobody thought a backwards imperial feudal state was ready either but Japan seems to be handling it well.

1. The UN isn't anti-semite. We simply ignore their transgressions as the UN body is concerned because the STATE of israel has improper relations with our representatives. They basicly have foreigners buying OUR damned representatives. We need to boot the American/Israeli lobbiest group from our congress. The nation of Israel has basicly got us hung up on their damned terrorism problems. 30 damned years as friends and THIS is what it has got us? Ridiculous. This is no different than a good buff guy who hangs around a weak yet *****y bimbo causing problems to then become his problem.

I only HOPE that analogy gets through your head because it is a legitimate analogy.

2. Look up paleo-conservative and spare me your ignorance regarding American political landscape. Palo-conservative is indicative of people who are against Constitutional change like an initative for making an ammendment to the Constitution like gay marriage. (Its a state issue) For instance we want to CONSERVE the fillibuster option because real conservatives use "original intent" as their main ideology and goals for decsion making. Since its obvious you don't know what "original intent" is, it means what the founder's would have wanted to happen if they were in the same situation.

By the way there IS a term for "retro" liberal. It is called "Classical Liberalism" which is basicly the same ideology of the founding fathers

3. George Washington our greatest president in his farewell address stated basicly "mind your own business" when in regards to foriegn nations. Because getting involved in foriegn affairs like the Taiwan affair isn't going to help us. But we can be reasonable about it such as North Korea which is a LEGITIMATE THREAT to our peace and prosperity due to their wild nature.

Anyway if you REALLY want to be a conservative, I suggest you bypass all this democrat and republican media propaganda bull**** and study more about American Revolutionary history and its principles. It will make you proud, and you'll learn to be less of a puppet to the parties because you'll discover that they DON'T GIVE AN ASS ABOUT YOU. They only give an ass about their offices and positions of power.

Decieving the people is not unique to neoconservatism. I agree that this is an ideology that may be executed by an elite which knows better than a domestic population. Do you think that the decision to go to Iraq would have been accepted at the time if he didn't make out that Iraq posed a threat?


I dont think the decision to go to Iraq would have had much support if people in the US and UK didnt think sadaam's regime didnt pose a threat.
I still think his regime posed a threat-eventually and dont mind that he and his henchmen have been removed. I just wish that Iraqis had overthrown him instead of US and allied soldiers having to fight and die. Its clear he had a tremendous stranglehold on all aspects of the country and the people of Iraq would not have likely been able to overthrow him any time soon. sadaam did have WMD at one time-he used them on the Kurds. I feel he had other WMD-both biological and nuclear, but had plenty of time to hide or move them. He has shown himslef to be a master of this game. He certainly had the motivation as well as the cash to obtain and develop any weapon he wanted.
There are many other nations that pose a threat-some obvious and some not so obvious. What do we do? threaten them and put pressure on them? Would that force their hand or cause them to back down? Is Iraq an example of resolve? What about Libya? Whats the real story there? Did Khadaffi just wake up one day and see the light? Or did we have some leverage on him?
Some people know all the truths here-its likel ywe never will. I hope that decisions are made in the US and allies best interests. trying to support a democratic-modeled government in an oil rich nation isnt a bad thing, not when a dictator and his henchmen were the only ones profitting. hopefully, no matter what the outcome, the people of Iraq will start to progress with jobs and proceeds of oil production. And hopefully, they will be a true ally and trading partner.

<<The cost of freedom, has always been bloodshed; you can't peruse the great revolutions of Britain, America, or France without seeing bloodshed. Freedom does come at a price.>>

Actually the greatest points on the road to UK democracy were bloodless. The Civil War didn't actually do as much as you'd think, it just made the monarchy a little more tactful about dealing with parliament. The real turning points were when George I got in (he spoke no english so Parlament got him to create the first Prime Minister and effectivley agree to give up most monarchical power) and when they started giving the vote to poor people in the 1800s, the last real step on that road was in 1930 or so when women got equal franchise with men.

A side question, why is neo-conservatism called by that name? To me there is nothing conservative about it.

The neoconservative adventure in Iraq is proof that ideology has no place in foreign policy. There are so many variables in international affairs that it's impossible to say "military action to spread democracy and democratic values is always justified and always has a positive outcome" or "tyrants must always be met with military force."
How do you reconcile this opinion with the belief that the liberation of Europe in 1945 was justified?

Iraq - yes, naturally Saddam had to be portrayed as a threat. However, this was part of a long-term strategy. Neoconservatism as we know it is fifty years in the making.
I agree, the invasion of Iraq had been on the Bush agenda since he came to power, and on Cheney's agenda before that.

Would you call the 1945 liberation of Europe a "neo-conservative action"?

(Food for thought: how many years after WWII officially ended were American soldiers and diplomats still in charge of Japan and Germany? Why do people think that it would be any faster in Iraq and Afganistan?)
I think they stayed around for about six years.

Why the neo-cons are a threat to the Republic.

1. Neo-conservativism is detrimental to the health of this republic by covering up real intentions through using lies thus removing "the cause" for war to our troops when it is disproven as false. Regarding the Iraq war, it would NOT have been wrong had the neo-con fascists not lied about the real intentions for war.

If there should have been a war after Afganistan, it should have been against North Korea which WAS a bigger threat at the time

2. The Neo-cons gain their base from the ignorant members of the religious right which ends up making the movement anti-first ammendment due to the "No Establishment" clause irking the religious right. You have ultra-libs attacking the second ammendment, well now we have another threat of the Neo-cons attacking the first ammendment. (Sanitorum or Frist themselves implied that the first ammendment was just an ammendment and not part of the original Constitution which basicly results in a Neo-con attack on the first.)

3. They are extremists. Moderates need to make the tough decisions because they find the middle ground and will LISTEN TO REASON. Neo-cons are extremists in the nature that they completely attack other Americans as traitors for LEGITIMATE claims. (Iraq war, abortion and gay rights being a state issue, and such.)

4. They are NOT real conservatives. Real conservatives have a sense to PROTECT or CONSERVE the Constitutional principles the nation was founded. These guys in general don't care. As long as you don't disagree with them, they don't consider you a conservative. Which is funny.. ha ha.. because they are completely megalomaniac without being really pro-military. Ha ha.

5. Real conservatives want ANY American citizen of proper age to be armed and educated in gun ettiqutte and handling. We prefer the military be strong AND there be strong militia. We also want a strong military at home to defend and deter any attack against our soverienty. The Neo-con fascists want GLOBAL American military might with a ridiculously small military force of only volenteers.

6. They are in complete power and yet we have only become weaker as a country. Our economy is being ignored. Our boarders are unprotected. And all our jobs are going overseas. Can you REALLY blame liberals at this point? No. But you DAMNED be sure to blame the neo-con fascists.
1. Neo-cons (if you could consider the Bush admin to be neo-con) are not the first US Government to lie royally. The lies were necessary in order to realise the liberation of Iraq. The public would never have accepted a war just to overthrow a distant dictator.

I agree that it may have been better to attack NK than Iraq. NK's dictatorship is not only more evil, but it poses a far worse threat. The main problems would be that, in the event or lead up to an attack, NK may have attacked South Korea. Also, the US would have a tougher job, because NK's economic problems are even worse than Iraq's.

2. Neo-cons do not agree with the RR. The Bush admin allied with them purely to gain electoral power. I agree that they are anti-freedom, which is why a true neocon should oppose them.

3. Just because one supports abortion and gay rights doesn't mean that one can't support militant democracy of the neocons. You're talking about the RR again.

4, 5, 6. I agree.

You cannot bring democracy about with an outside military force. You may be able to set up a pseudo-democracy with the citizenry voting, but remember that they had "elections" when Saddam was in power.
Why can't you bring democracy about with an outside military force? The USA did it in Europe and Japan in 1945.

I know, pseudo-democracy. Puppet governments are the problem when you have the USA doing the job.

What we must do is put economic pressure on the totalitarian governments and provide economic support to the people. Only through taking the wealth out of the hand of the government and putting in the hands of the people will the people experience the autonomy and power over government that they need to truly utilize a democracy.
I don't disagree, but how does a foreign power go about transferring economic power from the dictatorship to the people?

Neo-conservatism is a disturbing outgrowth of fiscal liberals and social conservatives--one of the most dangerous political demographics I can think of save perhaps the far left. The concept of "spreading democracy" is a flawed one since it requires the means of an unwitting populace to do so. There's something that doesn't sit right with me when I think about the neo-conservative notion of "If you don't have elections, I'll fuckin' spank you."

Democracy is all well and good but once you build a foreign policy around making the rest of world live up to your expectations, bad things can start to happen, and fast. Elements of the Nazi movement in WWII were as convinced of their moral high ground as some of us are now. Just because we're "champions of democracy" doesn't mean we automatically have the cure for every society. It also doesn't mean we're obligated to provide it to everybody.

Transforming a society into a democratic society is more than changing its Constitution and government. It is a deep change in the belief systems of its people - a change that runs contrary to many religious belief systems (whose world views may not have changed since the rise of the Ottoman Empire), and contrary to many social systems (whose roots are also far in the past).

Equality for women, for example, is anathema to these cultures, and is as alien an idea as putting men on the Moon.

The family clans, the religious heterodoxy enshrined in permanently warring sects, the appeal of a strongman dictator - these are all ideas that cannot be removed simply by drafting a Constitution.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try. But you will meet with resistance. In order for the attempt to succeed, it has to be a long term plan spanning decades of occupation and education, for the only hope you have is to educate the youth of that country, and raise them in a new atmosphere and a new culture. You won't be converting most of their parents.

With countries that are closer to Western norms, it's easier, and takes far less time. With countries that are further away, it might take a hundred years.
This is what I was trying to say, I certainly agree.

1. Neo-cons (if you could consider the Bush admin to be neo-con) are not the first US Government to lie royally. The lies were necessary in order to realise the liberation of Iraq. The public would never have accepted a war just to overthrow a distant dictator.



We didnt learn a thing from the Newsweek debacle, did we? President Bush obtained what he believed to be credible info from a source that should have had it facts straight. The man didnt lie. Some of us are tired of hearing this battle cry.
Its like others pasting "waffle" or "flip flop" on Kerry.

I REALLY don't care about the damned UN. But what I was talking about was in regards to the retaliatory behavior displayed by members of the administration. If you ARE going to play fiddle with the UN however, Israel has violated UN resolutions as well, yet we play unbiased favorites with them to.Really? America's supporting Israel? Source please?

Remember. I am a CONSERVATIVE (Paleo-conservative). I don't LIKE the UN. But I don't like politicians of ANY party pulling this behavior. Don't take me for some damned Democrate like Kennedy or that sort. I hate ANY corrupt politician. Kennedy and Delay and etc. I.e. you hate any politician. All politicians are corrupt to some degree. They have to be in order to get where they got.

If you plan to have a powerful global military however, you can NOT be attacking your allies like idiots. Neo-cons are damned idiots, plain and simple.That is flaming.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Really? America's supporting Israel? Source please?

Ummm.. every observable instance of American-Israeli interaction since they became a state in 1948? The fact that almost every diplomatic concern we have in the Middle East is a direct correlary with our relationship with Israel? You really think anyone in power in the US thought Iraq could hit the mainland United States with its "WMDs?" The main concern from a political standpoint was clearly Israel.



*snip*

That is flaming.

Not quite. It's baiting. Americai would be wise to avoid doing things like this again, as I've taken an interest in this thread ;)

You further my other assumptions SP with your condescending view that "some cultures" aren't capable of democracy. I'm sure nobody thought a backwards imperial feudal state was ready either but Japan seems to be handling it well.
You may think it's condescending, but it's true. It's easy for us, living in western culture to say so. Modern western culture is built upon the Enlightenment, which the Middle East never went through. Read Whispering Legs' post:
It is a deep change in the belief systems of its people - a change that runs contrary to many religious belief systems (whose world views may not have changed since the rise of the Ottoman Empire), and contrary to many social systems (whose roots are also far in the past).


Regarding Japan, it was not a feudal society before WW2. It was quite wealthy and civilised, not unlike the European imperial powers.

Since its obvious you don't know what "original intent" is, it means what the founder's would have wanted to happen if they were in the same situation.

By the way there IS a term for "retro" liberal. It is called "Classical Liberalism" which is basicly the same ideology of the founding fathers
I don't agree with basing today's policy decisions on what the founding fathers would have wanted. This is the world 21st century, not that of the late 18th century. It's radically different.

I don't think that's what Northern Fox means. He is not a classic liberal minarchist. FDR was like a neo-con: a globalist militarist international socialist.

Neo-conservatism is a disturbing outgrowth of fiscal liberals and social conservatives--one of the most dangerous political demographics I can think of save perhaps the far left.

Democracy is all well and good but once you build a foreign policy around making the rest of world live up to your expectations, bad things can start to happen, and fast. Elements of the Nazi movement in WWII were as convinced of their moral high ground as some of us are now. Just because we're "champions of democracy" doesn't mean we automatically have the cure for every society. It also doesn't mean we're obligated to provide it to everybody.
1. Just because the Bush admin is right-wing and socially conservative doesn't mean that all neocons are. In fact I think it is hypocritical to believe in spreading freedom abroad but restricting it domestically. Neo-conservatism is really more of an offshoot Liberation Socialist movement. To live up to the ideology, truly epic spending would be required. It would probably be necessary to tax the rich at 90%.

2. You're kind of right here. No government could depend on ideology alone, because things won't go according to it, according to plan. But I think that neo-cons are better compared to the western Allied powers in WW2 than the Nazis, who had no intent to spread democracy and humanitarianism.

1. Just because the Bush admin is right-wing and socially conservative doesn't mean that all neocons are. In fact I think it is hypocritical to believe in spreading freedom abroad but restricting it domestically. Neo-conservatism is really more of an offshoot Liberation Socialist movement. To live up to the ideology, truly epic spending would be required. It would probably be necessary to tax the rich at 90%.

"Liberation Socialist?" I've not ever heard that term before. I have a hard time believing this since neocons are at the forefront of nearly all forms of government and I have yet to see socialist ideas be taken seriously enough by American politicians to make a trend like neo-conservatism out of it.

2. You're kind of right here. No government could depend on ideology alone, because things won't go according to it, according to plan. But I think that neo-cons are better compared to the western Allied powers in WW2 than the Nazis, who had no intent to spread democracy and humanitarianism.

The neocons, on a very fundamental level, have no intent to distribute "humanitarianism" either, and the "democracy" is just a prettier term for "a Government we like." You have to ignore what they say and examine more closely what they end up doing. The sinister thing about neoconservatism is it sets out to forcibly change the way $CULTURE perceives its government. Like someone else mentioned, not all cultures are ready for western democracy. The responsible thing to do is to fight tyrany through the spread of ideas and thought, not with through brute force and other people's money. Create an environment where the people who step up and initiate change themselves are rewarded as such. When you go in and "fix" the situation for another group of people--even if you're doing it under the guise of "humanitarianism"--you're sending them the message that you don't think the culture in question is capable of fixing itself. If I lived in Iraq I'd feel pretty goddamn insulted by that. Is it that much of a surprise that many of them are?

"Liberation Socialist?" I've not ever heard that term before. I have a hard time believing this since neocons are at the forefront of nearly all forms of government and I have yet to see socialist ideas be taken seriously enough by American politicians to make a trend like neo-conservatism out of it.
I just made up that term. Neo-conservatism is socialist, but Republicans will never admit it. See Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is foreign intervention by an enormous superpower government which is used to redistribute resources and freedom. Sounds socialist to me.

The neocons, on a very fundamental level, have no intent to distribute "humanitarianism" either, and the "democracy" is just a prettier term for "a Government we like." You have to ignore what they say and examine more closely what they end up doing.
Neo-cons are not necessarily Bush admin. I've heard self-described neo-cons saying that they don't consider the current admin to be "neo-conservative." I was the one here who first said that the main purpose of the Iraq war was not freedom but the creation of a pro-American state. I agree that the US Government must be watched constantly.

The sinister thing about neoconservatism is it sets out to forcibly change the way CULTURE perceives its government. Like someone else mentioned, not all cultures are ready for western democracy. The responsible thing to do is to fight tyrany through the spread of ideas and thought, not with through brute force and other people's money.
I was the one who said that not all cultures are ready for western democracy. I think that it is a good thing to try to change a culture to be favourable to democracy, and I question if it is possible to do this without military intervention.

I guess I have yet to see weather this has helped Iraq out yet. We still have suside bombers killing people daily. Still have squabbles over getting the gov together so they can start making decissions. There is still mass poverty. Some people are still under the thumb of the Bath party through terrorist cells in the country that keep areas in fear.
The only thing keeping the wolves out of Iraq is the "Freedom Fighting Force," who seems to have the Haliburton regieme pulling money out of its pocket.

Evil fighting Evil just creates an endless cycle of evil.

I just made up that term. Neo-conservatism is socialist, but Republicans will never admit it. See Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is foreign intervention by an enormous superpower government which is used to redistribute resources and freedom. Sounds socialist to me.

I tend to equate socialism with the attendant raping of economic freedoms, so I'm reluctant to apply the term in this context. Still, I understand your point and agree with it to a certain extent. FDR was a son of a bitch.


Neo-cons are not necessarily Bush admin. I've heard self-described neo-cons saying that they don't consider the current admin to be "neo-conservative." I was the one here who first said that the main purpose of the Iraq war was not freedom but the creation of a pro-American state. I agree that the US Government must be watched constantly.

This basically just says "not all neo-cons are in favor if the Bush administration" which I'm not sure I'd bother pointing out if I were in your position. You can use any political label and find people within it who believe that current political incarnations of their politics aren't an accurate representation of their politics. It appeals to the notion that not all people think the same way, which is a fundamental fact of human nature that almost all of us are prepared to accept.


I was the one who said that not all cultures are ready for western democracy. I think that it is a good thing to try to change a culture to be favourable to democracy, and I question if it is possible to do this without military intervention.

Ah, I hadn't paid any attention to the poster I usually just read what's written and determine whether or not I agree with it. I'm still wary of the idea of "chang[ing] a culture to be favourable to democracy" because it disregards some of the basic freedoms that we supposedly champion. Telling people that they have the freedom of thought and then telling them how to think smacks of hypocracy and evil, no matter how convinced you are as to the virtue of your ideal.

It's possible to do this kind of thing [i]without military action as long as we're prepared to be patient and let these cultures come around on their own, which oftentimes is the only sensible solution if you want to avoid car-bombs and plane hijackings for years to come. Only in the truly justifiable instances of military force are we free from some manner of retaliation: I don't think anyone out there that's worth a damn still wants to kick American or British ass for WWII.

I'm still wary of the idea of "chang[ing] a culture to be favourable to democracy" because it disregards some of the basic freedoms that we supposedly champion. Telling people that they have the freedom of thought and then telling them how to think smacks of hypocracy and evil, no matter how convinced you are as to the virtue of your ideal.

That's a good point, and I am uncomfortable with elements of the ideology such as this. I don't look at it as telling them how to think so much as telling them to tolerate dissent, rather than kill people who disagree with them. For example, on the gay marriage debate, I don't think that government intervention to legalise it is "telling conservatives how to think," but even if it is, it's completely justifiable.

Only in the truly justifiable instances of military force are we free from some manner of retaliation: I don't think anyone out there that's worth a damn still wants to kick American or British ass for WWII.
That's because the cultures of the conquered countries in WW2 were changed to be favourable to democratic, enlightenment values.

That's a good point, and I am uncomfortable with elements of the ideology such as this. I don't look at it as telling them how to think so much as telling them to tolerate dissent, rather than kill people who disagree with them. For example, on the gay marriage debate, I don't think that government intervention to legalise it is "telling conservatives how to think," but even if it is, it's completely justifiable.

Of course it's telling them how to think. It's imposing a viewpoint and an ideology on someone that they may or may not be prepared to accept, both on an individual level and as a nation in general. Part of the "freedom" we keep talking about is the ability to think and reason for oneself without outside interference or influence. As information technology spreads throughout the world, so too will a growing number of political and philosophical ideas and statistics. We have to patient while these ideas are assimilated into less affluent cultures; our problem is we all want the change to happen too fast.

Of course it's telling them how to think. It's imposing a viewpoint and an ideology on someone that they may or may not be prepared to accept, both on an individual level and as a nation in general. Part of the "freedom" we keep talking about is the ability to think and reason for oneself without outside interference or influence.

As information technology spreads throughout the world, so too will a growing number of political and philosophical ideas and statistics. We have to patient while these ideas are assimilated into less affluent cultures; our problem is we all want the change to happen too fast.
I don't accept that people have the freedom to take away other people's freedom when it's their own business.

The second point is valid, but what about states like NK whose government completely blocks anything coming in from the outside world?

The neoconservative adventure in Iraq is proof that ideology has no place in foreign policy. There are so many variables in international affairs that it's impossible to say "military action to spread democracy and democratic values is always justified and always has a positive outcome" or "tyrants must always be met with military force." Previous American administrations have always worked from pragmatism in foreign policy, playing the tough guy when they thought it would be advantageous, and using negotiations, trade and other forms of "soft power" when that seemed to better fit the situation. The reason Bush's foreign policy has been such a failure is that he and his appointees have forsaken this tradition in favor of an academic idea cooked up by some fringe think tanks.
Just wanted to bump that again - best thing I've ever read on this forum.

Lots of great (and horrible) points made on this thread - I'd just like to add something I don't think has been addressed explicitly. While Muslim countries are certainly capable of democracy (see: Turkey) Iraq is such an impoverished, uneducated, backwards country that it is NOT ready for democracy. The majority of Iraqis are more interested in where their next meal comes from than what kind of government they have. And it's not just Iraq - the entire middle east is so dependant on oil to sustain their economy and oil revenues are kept so tightly to an elite class that most of these countries are a long way from being ready for democracy.

Not that it proves my point, but I have seen a lot of this first hand - I am in the Army in Iraq right now.

Not that it proves my point, but I have seen a lot of this first hand - I am in the Army in Iraq right now.


By the way-No matter what the final outcome is in this whole thing, many, many of us salute, respect and thank you as a soldier, and all our other soldiers, for you efforts and sacrafices. You may not hear that so I wanted to get that out to you. Or maybe you do hear it, but certainly not enough.
Best wishes to you and yours and hopes for a safe and quick return to your home.

Not all cultures and societies are ready for Western style democracy. They're as ready as they'll ever be. You can't have something from nothing. Many of these cultures are products of essentially 16th century societies that were subjugated and abused for decades under colonialism, followed by decades of abuse by dictatorships and/or Communist governments during the Cold War, and in some cases further abused by civil war and corporate exploitation.These events have definately resulted in increased loathing and reticence of the West, but with global communication, and simple comparison, these will be overcome with time.
It can have a Constitution, elections, and elected leaders, and still not be a democracy.I would argue that the technical aspect of a democracy have to be established first, followed by a democratic political culture. You have to have the infastructure first; people will learn by example alone.
Transforming a society into a democratic society is more than changing its Constitution and government. It is a deep change in the belief systems of its people - a change that runs contrary to many religious belief systems (whose world views may not have changed since the rise of the Ottoman Empire), and contrary to many social systems (whose roots are also far in the past).Compare ths to the Feudal system in Europe, or any other "undeveloped" society and its not musch different. Again, there has to be a first time, and there must be someone/something extaordiary to lead by example. I don't think their societies are any less receptive to radical thought than the strict Christian feudal system of govenance of Europe through the midle ages.
Perhaps the dynamic is different because the Islamic world has developed an anti-western bent in order to maintain their own "integrity"; probably a reaction (or inferiority complex) resulting from colonial rule, like you say. They are not pioneering a new ideolog, but adopting one over a perhaps, more solidified and well-indoctrinated set of unjust societal norms.

Equality for women, for example, is anathema to these cultures, and is as alien an idea as putting men on the Moon.

The family clans, the religious heterodoxy enshrined in permanently warring sects, the appeal of a strongman dictator - these are all ideas that cannot be removed simply by drafting a Constitution.Strides are being taken in these areas, for example, just this week in Kuwait, woment were granted the right to vote, and more equality in politics. Women's movements are definately charging up throughout the middle east.
These are serious and disturbing realities, but again, how are they different than the feuding families of Europe, and such.
Its only a matter of chance (gepgraphy, biology...just go read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" everyone) that "western" society was the first to develope progressive government and attain the most power.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try. But you will meet with resistance. In order for the attempt to succeed, it has to be a long term plan spanning decades of occupation and education, for the only hope you have is to educate the youth of that country, and raise them in a new atmosphere and a new culture. You won't be converting most of their parents. Though this smacks of cultural superiority, I agree. Like Melkor, it rubs me the wrong way though. I guess that we must be convinced of this system's superiority (and I am) for this discussion to even take place.
Should we try? Not in all cases. It should, however, be something that the United Nations attempts to address - if more countries were democratic and more countries had similar cultural norms, and more countries were equal participants in a fair system of international trade and prosperity, there would be far less room in this world for future war and the terrorist actions of malcontents.The UN was never meant to be a vehicle for regime change, nor can it function in that way, evidentally. Universal membership makes that impossible. The UN's role as a center for dialogue and some sort of collective comming together plus humanitarian mobilization is the maximum I expect. Soverighn nations will alwas be the ones to revolutionize and go to war on behalf of ideology.

I'm still wary of the idea of "chang a culture to be favourable to democracy" because it disregards some of the basic freedoms that we supposedly champion. Telling people that they have the freedom of thought and then telling them how to think smacks of hypocracy and evil, no matter how convinced you are as to the virtue of your ideal. This is the crux of the problem we have: as Westerners we are convinced that democracy and freedom are right. We want to spread these values to the oppressed people of the world, ostensibly, to improve their, and their children's lives. How do we do this without a) de-valuing their culture b) threatening their freedom c) killing a whole bunch of them d) upholding quasi-democratic government artificially for a time e) either going bankrupt, or getting filthy rich, both bad situations? Those things might need to happen, but they inherently contradict our values.
Basically, we have to believe what we're doing is right, with no other perspective lenses. Otherwise, any argument for change is moot.

It's possible to do this kind of thing [i]without military action as long as we're prepared to be patient and let these cultures come around on their own, which oftentimes is the only sensible solution if you want to avoid car-bombs and plane hijackings for years to come. First of all, people don;t like to sit around and wait when they believe they're right, and are capable of changing things. And why should they? Women are suffering, people are being murdered for "honour" and thrown in jail without charge. Terrorists are being funded. do reallly want to wait patiently for them to "come around"?
Only in the truly justifiable instances of military force are we free from some manner of retaliation: I don't think anyone out there that's worth a damn still wants to kick American or British ass for WWIIThis doesn't make sense. You can do something just and suffer retaliation, just like you can do something wrong and get away with it.

This is the crux of the problem we have: as Westerners we are convinced that democracy and freedom are right. We want to spread these values to the oppressed people of the world, ostensibly, to improve their, and their children's lives. How do we do this without a) de-valuing their culture b) threatening their freedom c) killing a whole bunch of them d) upholding quasi-democratic government artificially for a time e) either going bankrupt, or getting filthy rich, both bad situations? Those things might need to happen, but they inherently contradict our values.

And when you find a contradiction in your values you need to re-think them and figure out where they went wrong. Contradictions do not exist in nature, and should not exist in any area of political or philosophical thought.

Basically, we have to believe what we're doing is right, with no other perspective lenses. Otherwise, any argument for change is moot.

No! No, no no! We have to know what we're doing is right and take a good hard look at what we're doing and why before we do it. Beliefs do not influence facts.

First of all, people don;t like to sit around and wait when they believe they're right, and are capable of changing things.

And when they know they're right and cabable of changing things no one can stop them. The very manner in which postwar Iraq is being handled speaks volumes as to the administration's willingness to rush ahead without examining the entire plan. You talk about the proliferation of terrorism like it's something we'd be improving by continued meddling in the middle east. History has shown at nearly every turn that the Americans have a way of turning the people they're "saving" into enemies.

And why should they? Women are suffering, people are being murdered for "honour" and thrown in jail without charge. Terrorists are being funded. do reallly want to wait patiently for them to "come around"?

Yes, and we should have from the start. We wouldn't be such a big target for these people if we didn't rub out star spangled bullshit in everyone's face all the time. This country is starting to curl up to the notion that it has as much of a responsibility to other citizens in the world than it does to its own. We go to war to "liberate people from the yoke of oppression" while waging at least one notable war against its own citizens?

This doesn't make sense. You can do something just and suffer retaliation, just like you can do something wrong and get away with it.

My brain just fumbled all over itself trying to respond to this. I suppose that part you're referring to was a rather weak point in my argument, but I do tend to think that when a person or group of people actually do the right thing, it tends to get acknowledged by others. There are legitimate reasons for the use of force, and this would be one of them. You've just got to be certain you were justified in the first place. Politicians, like any group of people tend to be irresponsible in this regard, often ignoring obvious fallacies in their reasoning.

And when you find a contradiction in your values you need to re-think them and figure out where they went wrong. Contradictions do not exist in nature, and should not exist in any area of political or philosophical thought. I don't agree. You can't extrapolate the physical and natural world to the constructions of society and human thought. I admire your idealism, and recognise the desire for a unifying 'theory of everything' but I don't see that happening in the world oday, nor do I consider it possible. Something to strive for, maybe.
No! No, no no! We have to know what we're doing is right and take a good hard look at what we're doing and why before we do it. Beliefs do not influence facts. What is the difference between knowledge and belief? You only KNOW from your perspective, which may be different from someone else's KNOWING, and then it all boils down to belief anyway. No one can argue against belief, because there is nothing to argue. When we are confronted with contraditions, dilemas, belief (be it moral, religious, ideological, whatever) is all that is left.

My brain just fumbled all over itself trying to respond to this. I suppose that part you're referring to was a rather weak point in my argument, but I do tend to think that when a person or group of people actually do the right thing, it tends to get acknowledged by others. There are legitimate reasons for the use of force, and this would be one of them. You've just got to be certain you were justified in the first place. Politicians, like any group of people tend to be irresponsible in this regard, often ignoring obvious fallacies in their reasoning.I think this is the same issue as in the first paragraph. You just want things to work out right, if we do the right things for the right reasons. The fact is, they don't. We don't live in an axiomated world where logic carried out pecisely will yeild results. Mahtematics works that way, philosophy and logic work that way to some extent. I causion you against reverting to a karma-esque reward-and-punishment outlook - history simply does not bear it out, in my opinion.
I think human interactions are less predictable.

...we're getting off topic though. Neo-conservatism...ermm...

I don't know how to respond besides noting that I staunchly disagree with just about everything you just said. Please don't confuse me with an idealist, that couldn't be farther from the truth. This is the part where I point to the link in my singature and grunt lazily; as I've found myself getting to this point in my philosophical beliefs with just about every debate I've been in on this forum. While I'm reluctant to point to someone else's work and say "that's what I think" it's awfully more convenient than explaining it over and over again.

Fair enough. The wikipedia definition is a little different from what I gathered from your thread on this topic a while back. Striving for happiness as opposed to the fulfillment of a value structure a pretty different.
*goes to dig up old thread*