My thesis on world imperialism; Please if you post, no "f-bombs"

[RobinsontoDuncan]

"The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within."
-Mahatma Gandhi

What is government? Government is the institution of order into society. Thus, any government is the representative of the society it is providing order for. Democracy is not the perfect form of government, neither is communism, nor dictatorship, nor even theocracy; although many throughout the 20th and 21st centuries have fought wars to prove otherwise.

The Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.) spent nearly 75 years attempting to proliferate communism, often at the expense of lives and resources that could have been used for the betterment of their own people, this mentality would lead to their collapse as their communist economy was simply not created with the ability to accept the strain of being a world superpower. Many equate the fall of the Soviet Union as the capitulation that communism doesn’t work. What it really was, was the admittance that nations have a responsibility to evolve for themselves, that one nation simply can not take the burden of world mover and survive. The United States view of communism, then and now, is that of an “evil” and morally repugnant thing, as to why this is, well most Americans can’t tell you. Communism is a word to be hated, it has a negative connotation, don’t ask me why it’s bad, it just is.

The truth is that people are always going to be partial to their form of government, society will always have a superiority complex over their own values. The Unites States has begun to adapt the policy of the Soviet Union, it disturbs me because when talking to the average “reasonable man” about the war in Iraq, that person will stubbornly insist that our presence is justified as long as we are there for democratic ideals. The quote I opened with by Mahatma Gandhi sums up the argument of my anti-imperialism, governments are a social contract drawn by the general will of the people, and thus the general will of the people will always be right in regard as to which form their government takes, that was Jean-Jacques Rousseau by the way. Is our invasion of Iraq justified? Just think, it is possible that other peoples can see democracy the same way we see communism, it doesn’t make them wrong, just different, and in a modern world intelligent people accept that. The ignorant imperialists who feel their society has the right to do as it pleases whenever it pleases because it is always right and, of course, superior, are not fit to exist in a modern world.

Any nation in today’s world that thinks it has the right to suppress or change another nation in its image will fall, as will we…soon.

[MannyIsGod]

I tried to make the same arguement in here that all of a government's power is drawn from the people it represents, and I got slammed. I wish you good luck in the venture.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

When people realize that i am directly attacking our policy of "spreading democracy" im sure i'll get nailed too, but who cares most americans are stupid, self-absorbed, and arrogant things.

[Useruser666]

And that's what makes our country great!

[Yonivore]

So, how do you explain Japan, Germany, Italy, and others...just to name a few countries where democracy was forced from without?

[smeagol]

Germany? Go read some history Yoni.

Hitler lost an election against Hidenberg in 1932 (53% vs 36%).

he then became Chancellor and President in 1934, when Hindenberg died.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

how do i explain them.... well considering that Germany was a democracy before an executive coup de' tat that gave Hitler power (only 15 percent of Germany was ever truly Nazi before Hitler became chancellor in 1932, illegally i might add) I would say that we didnt force democracy on them at all, we simply defeated them at war, Hitler killed himself and the German people wrote their own constitution, as did the Japanese.

And on the subject of the Japanese it might intrest you to know that they too were a constitutional monarchy prior to the military assaination of their prime minister resulting in a military dictatorship, and it really isnt that hard to force a government on a people after two atomic bombs and 200,000 civilain casulties. It dosen't mean we were right to do it.

Now Italy, again they were a democracy before Mussolini took power and reverted to one on their own afterwards, we never installed their government at all as a matter of fact, Mussolini was extreamly un-popular and was assasinated by his own people before we had the chance to completly defeat his armies.

I am having a hard time with your seemingly inability to comprehend my argument here, i am not saying that forcing a new form of government on another people never worked ( and by worked i mean never happend), surley you can find hundreds of examples to prove other wise, i am saying that 1) it is immoral for one society to force its views on another society, and 2) true democracy is dervied from the general will of the people.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Germany? Go read some history Yoni.

Hitler lost an election against Hidenberg in 1932 (53% vs 36%).

he then became Chancellor and President in 1934, when Hindenberg died.

Hindenberg actually gave him the chancellorship by executive succesion, something that in the weimer republic he had no legal right to do, shortly before he died

[Sec24Row7]

The Genocides in Uganda, Sudan, Congo, and Angola are what happen when Imperialist nations loosen their grip on their protectorates and leave tribal communities to sort out their own problems.

For many of these nations the only way to gain wealth was to be occupied by a 3rd party. Standard of living goes down almost instantly once the occupiers leave because the status quo of tribal warfare returns.

If we want the Western world ideals of Peace and Prosperity for all to be upheld then the West is going to have to impose Western Philosophy on the world through polical, economic and yes, military force.

Throughout History, centralization of power has meant more prosperity and less death due to war.

Roman, Mongol, Greek, British, Egyptian, Ottoman, and American Imperialism all have lead to times of peace for otherwise waring nations, though all have been achieved through force.

Standard of living has gone up for the members of every one of these empires.

Infrastructure is built. Education is recieved. Laws are enforced.

You may say that Empires eventually fall. That none of these systems have worked in the long run.

EVERY system that has been created for rule over people has fallen.

Democracy, Theocracy, Republic, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Dictatorship: all have fallen at one point or another in history.

Every system has and will fall. This American system will falter, now or in 2000 years.

What you have to count is how well it operates towards the people that it governs during the time that it is here.

For this, American Imperialism is the best choice in my opinion, for all concerned.

[violentkitten]

Standing on the beach
With a gun in my hand
Staring at the sea
Staring at the sand
Staring down the barrel
At the arab on the ground
I can see his open mouth
But I hear no sound

I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm The Stranger
Killing an arab

I can turn
And walk away
Or I can fire the gun
Staring at the sky
Staring at the sun
Whichever I chose
It amounts to the same
Absolutely nothing

I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm The Stranger
Killing an arab

I feel the steel butt jump
Smooth in my hand
Staring at the sea
Staring at the sand
Staring at myself
Reflected in the eyes
Of the dead man on the beach
The dead man on the beach

I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm The Stranger
Killing an arab

[Yonivore]

Germany? Go read some history Yoni.

Hitler lost an election against Hidenberg in 1932 (53% vs 36%).

he then became Chancellor and President in 1934, when Hindenberg died.
And then he became a fascist dictator. Your point?

[Yonivore]

...i am saying that 1) it is immoral for one society to force its views on another society,...
Such as radical Islam is trying to do with the non-Muslim world?


...and 2) true democracy is dervied from the general will of the people.
Agreed...however, they need the freedom to express that will first. And, in most cases that's only ever been accomplished through violent revolt or external intervention. I think the days of revolt were past for the average Iraqi...the best they could have ever hoped for was a military coup that replaced one dictator for another.

[Duff McCartney]

Agreed...however, they need the freedom to express that will first. And, in most cases that's only ever been accomplished through violent revolt or external intervention.

Which is not unlike how France helped the colonies defeat the British in the American Revolution.

So I guess we are doing just as the French do.

[Clandestino]

so, you don't think we should've changed the fact that saddam was killing everyone?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

so, you don't think we should've changed the fact that saddam was killing everyone?


You're an idiot and what's worse, an illiterate one, but don’t worry, I blame the no child left behind act.



The Genocides in Uganda, Sudan, Congo, and Angola are what happen when Imperialist nations loosen their grip on their protectorates and leave tribal communities to sort out their own problems.

For many of these nations the only way to gain wealth was to be occupied by a 3rd party. Standard of living goes down almost instantly once the occupiers leave because the status quo of tribal warfare returns.


But what you don’t know is that:
1) Tribal warfare in Africa is a 'modern phenomena" caused by African societies being forced to "enslave or be enslaved" in early colonial times. The sad reality is that when Portuguese slave traders introduced the practice into African society, it caused otherwise peaceful tribes to go to war in order to "get to my neighbor before he gets to me."
2) Imperialist nations caused the problems of tribal war by creating borders that contain separate and conflicting cultures, when a European nation leaves these cultures are not in a traditional African nation, but an imperialistic one created out of a Eurocentric, not African perception of society. In other words, it would be like putting the English and French in the same country in the middle ages and telling them to play nice and make a good government, you think that would work?



Throughout History, centralization of power has meant more prosperity and less death due to war.

Roman, Mongol, Greek, British, Egyptian, Ottoman, and American Imperialism all have lead to times of peace for otherwise warring nations, though all have been achieved through force.

Standard of living has gone up for the members of every one of these empires.

Infrastructure is built. Education is received. Laws are enforced.


Ok the British raped, pillaged, plundered, and savaged both their imperial subjects and their imperial resources (both in India and Africa, but especially Africa)

The Mongols under Genghis Khan created a "waste land" in traditional Arab countries killing hundreds of thousands in the first real act of genocide.

By the Greeks I am assuming you are referring to the Macedonians in which case I assure you that after Alexander's death, his complete destruction of traditional cultural governments and empires set up many of the traditional conflicts in the Middle East that are still happening today. (2500 years later)


The Egyptian’s greatest empire was the "old Egypt which extended to Assyria and Ethiopia, lasted for less than 200 years and happened 2700 years ago. We don't even know who half of the people's they concurred were let alone anything that happened to them afterward.

Ok the Ottomans made a mess of both the Middle East and the Balkans, cause World War, and treated both Europeans and Arabs horribly, they also are responsible for the first "modern genocide" as they slaughtered 200,000 Armenians. Something they still won’t admit to this day. (im sure an entire race willingly got up and walked out to the desert, tied themselves together, and rotted under the sun from lack of food and water...duh)


The Americans killed more Pilipino than the Japanese did during World War II during our little "imperialism tear" in the turn of the century, we brutally suppressed these people to a level far worse than anything the native Americans ever endured (don't even get me started there) one general was even quoted as saying that every [Pilipino] we kill today is one less we have to kill tomorrow.

Alright I am a civilized person, if I was actually in front of you when you attempted to make these arguments I can not promise I would beat you to death, but trying to defend imperialism when you don't even know the facts isn't only asinine it is down right racist. I have the strangest feeling your sitting at home really thinking that imperialism was good for all these "backward people" but really get your facts straight, that is the most redneck, ignorant view in existence today and no other educated person the world over will support it.

Just in case we haven't covered enough bases today, the Spanish wiped out between 8 and 23 million Native Americans due to their imperialism.

[Clandestino]

Your an idiot and what's worse, an illiterate one, but don’t worry, I blame the no child left behind act.


so, are you saying that iraqis wanted their form of government? are you saying that they wanted to be killed by saddam and watched their wives and children be raped, beaten and tortured in front of them if they did things he didn't like?

and if you think we will fall soon.. you're sadly mistaken. why don't you move out of the u.s. if you think the u.s. is such a bad country. truth is, you don't that is why you're still here.. you just like to bitch and act smart.

oh yeah... FUCK YOU...for the comment above..

[RobinsontoDuncan]

again im not going to dignify this with a response becuase it isnt my fault you havent read my post.

[Clandestino]

again im not going to dignify this with a response becuase it isnt my fault you havent read my post.

did you not say this?


The Unites States has begun to adapt the policy of the Soviet Union, it disturbs me because when talking to the average “reasonable man” about the war in Iraq, that person will stubbornly insist that our presence is justified as long as we are there for democratic ideals. The quote I opened with by Mahatma Gandhi sums up the argument of my anti-imperialism, governments are a social contract drawn by the general will of the people, and thus the general will of the people will always be right in regard as to which form their government takes, that was Jean-Jacques Rousseau by the way. Is our invasion of Iraq justified? Just think, it is possible that other peoples can see democracy the same way we see communism, it doesn’t make them wrong, just different, and in a modern world intelligent people accept that. The ignorant imperialists who feel their society has the right to do as it pleases whenever it pleases because it is always right and, of course, superior, are not fit to exist in a modern world.

Any nation in today’s world that thinks it has the right to suppress or change another nation in its image will fall, as will we…soon.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

yes and my argument is that a democracy must evolve, if you study history and take a look at democratic governments, you will see that democracies are simply not built in a day, to date France has gone through six republics because they simply haven't had the tradition and society to support a strong one, up until now. Iraq also must come to its own politically because no nation can simply become a democracy, a nation must become ready to accept one, you will find that many middle eastern countires are still in need of a centralized government becuase they have not developed traditions of freedom, the people do not have the social infrastructure to build one.

[Sec24Row7]

"Alright I am a civilized person, if I was actually in front of you when you attempted to make these arguments I can not promise I would beat you to death, but trying to defend imperialism when you don't even know the facts isn't only asinine it is down right racist. I have the strangest feeling your sitting at home really thinking that imperialism was good for all these "backward people" but really get your facts straight, that is the most redneck, ignorant view in existence today and no other educated person the world over will support it.

Just in case we haven't covered enough bases today, the Spanish wiped out between 8 and 23 million Native Americans due to their imperialism."

OK lets see here first of all, you really need to come up with opinions for yourself instead of getting them line for line from a 6th grade social studies book.

British: Of course they profitted from Africa and India, what else would be the point of them being there? My point is, the Native population made gains during this time too in overall wealth of the country. Before the British got there the natives were segmented into many tribes constantly warring with one another. When they were there, they werent. After they left, they reverted.

Mongols: There are no accounts written by the mongols themselves of their conquests. All accounts are written by the defeated and occuppied. The fact remains that if an enemy surrendered, NO ONE was harmed and the local government was usually kept in place paying LESS of a tribute to the khans than they usually did to their original lord or king. During Ghengis's reighn and afterwards the FIRST trade routes were established between East and West, enriching BOTH sides with new cultures, ideas, and ways of life.

By the Greeks, I did mean Alexander, his empire lasted for such a short period of time, but he did unite land from egypt to India, defeating along the way another great empire when he defeated the Acheamenid Dynasty. (Don't really see how you blame Alexander for the troubles in the Middle East since THREE different Major Religions have swept the Region since.)

Don't have time to counter all of these...

And the Spanish. You may have a point. Spain was much more interested in raping the countryside than settleing here, at least for the first few hundred years of occupation. They had no fixed system of government for rule over natives (that they didn't consider people anyway, there is a big difference). I really don't have any excuses for Spain, that's why I didn't mention them. Their early interests in slaving really didn't pan out, and the 90% of the natives died of disease almost as soon as they got here. (The Taino, Carib and Cybonee(sp?) "Indians" on Cuba, Haiti, and the Rest of the Carribean Islands were almost all knocked out by disease not mass slaughter as were all the native americans in the new world even the ones in the US)


Finally, to disagree with someone's opinions is fine. But to mock threaten physical violence, call someone a racist because of their ideas on events that happend hundreds even thousands of years ago on the other side of the world, and question their education and intelligence, in my opinion isn't.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is an uneducated redneck bully.

[Brodels]

Thus, any government is the representative of the society it is providing order for.

While government is a representative of a society in the international forum of ideas, the philosophies of that government don't necessarily reflect what the people actually want. Government can represent a group of people because the people actually want it that way or they can represent a group of people for other reasons.


Democracy is not the perfect form of government, neither is communism, nor dictatorship, nor even theocracy; although many throughout the 20th and 21st centuries have fought wars to prove otherwise.

What does it mean to be perfect? And can any one particular form of government ever be perfect for everyone in a society? Either way, the people often get what they want. It sometimes takes a good bit of time, but the best (although not perfect) form of government for a particular group of people will often come to the forefront over time.

[quopte]Many equate the fall of the Soviet Union as the capitulation that communism doesn’t work.[/quote]

Well, generally speaking, it doesn't really work in today's world. When it does work, it works for a short period of time. There are some exceptions, but for most, it simply isn't a good option.


What it really was, was the admittance that nations have a responsibility to evolve for themselves, that one nation simply can not take the burden of world mover and survive.

I'm not a fan of U.S. semi-imperialism either, but don't pretend that the rest of the world's nation don't have their fingers wherever their resources and power allow them to put them.

And you can't look at the Russian example and prove that it will apply in all or even most circumstances. We simply don't know what a single nation is capable of over hundreds of years when it comes to exerting power, and the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't prove that other nations will collapse under similar circumstances.


The United States view of communism, then and now, is that of an “evil” and morally repugnant thing, as to why this is, well most Americans can’t tell you. Communism is a word to be hated, it has a negative connotation, don’t ask me why it’s bad, it just is.

Many Americans can tell you. And I'll reveal the answer since you don't appear to know. Our democratic republic is a political system that is tightly woven with capitalism. People may pretend that the political facets of communism are indeed most repugnant, but that's just a cover. The ability to control your own economic destiny is limited under a communist system. Communism is hated by many simply because of the economic implications of adopting it.


The truth is that people are always going to be partial to their form of government

Others in this thread have shown that to be untrue. Not every society favors their form of government at any given time.


society will always have a superiority complex over their own values.

Again, that's not necessarily true. But you're missing the point anyway. Societies don't exert influence over the rest of the world for the sole purpose of spreading values. They do so because there is something in it for them politically or financially. You seem to think that nations spread values just to spread values. It goes beyond that.



The Unites States has begun to adapt the policy of the Soviet Union,

The U.S. isn't adopting the policy of the Soviet Union any more than it has in the past. The Soviet threat has been diminished. But our view of the world, at least at the very top level, hasn't changed for 100 years. We interact with the world in similar ways.


it disturbs me because when talking to the average “reasonable man” about the war in Iraq, that person will stubbornly insist that our presence is justified as long as we are there for democratic ideals.

Some will, and others won't. And while I don't believe that our presense there is justified, I'm unwilling to dismiss those claims completely. I don't want to be there because of the money we're spending, but in the end, our presence could turn out to be the best thing that ever happens to that nation. We just can't say yet.


The quote I opened with by Mahatma Gandhi sums up the argument of my anti-imperialism, governments are a social contract drawn by the general will of the people, and thus the general will of the people will always be right in regard as to which form their government takes

And while violence and lots of time will generally prove that to be correct, it simply isn't the case at any one moment. It takes time and critical mass to overturn governments. And while people may not be content in a particular form of government, their daily lives need to degrade to a certain point before they'll take any action. It's hard for me to believe that East Germans supported communism in 1985 wholeheartedly but came to despise it just a few years later.

People are generally happy if they have a decent standard of living and their lives are comfortable and stable. If a nation is wealthy enough to provide for everyone under communism, people will be happy. If there are enough resources so that people can provide for themselves in a democratic republic, people will be happy.

People around the world, especially poor ones, don't care as much about political philosophy as they do about having the resources to live well. It's not communism or democracy that people are really embracing, it's a better way of life. And the element that determines a society's quality of life can be found in the economic underpinnings of their adopted political system.


Is our invasion of Iraq justified? Just think, it is possible that other peoples can see democracy the same way we see communism, it doesn’t make them wrong, just different, and in a modern world intelligent people accept that.

You had a decent thing going until you went here. I'll again proclaim that I don't support the war, but it's hard for me to imagine that the people were actually content with Saddam's rule. For your point to take hold, that needs to be the case.

And what if the people there end up embracing democratic politics? It still wasn't worth a war in my mind, but it certainly could happen. And if it does, those people will certainly think that the war was justified. And if the people most affected by the war think it is justified, it really doesn't matter if we think the war is good or bad for them. It's simply too early to tell.


The ignorant imperialists who feel their society has the right to do as it pleases whenever it pleases because it is always right and, of course, superior, are not fit to exist in a modern world.

Again, you make the mistake of believing that people spread political ideas simply because they think that their ideas are better. It's really about much more than that. As a libertarian, I don't want the U.S. to exert its military influence anywhere in the world unless it's absolutely necessary. But the war is not simply a matter of us going into Iraq to make it democratic.


Any nation in today’s world that thinks it has the right to suppress or change another nation in its image will fall, as will we…soon.

If another nation decides to attack us in the future, we better hope that our leaders disagree with you. If you are unwilling to suppress those hoping to destroy your country, you're bound to die as a nation quickly and without a fight. That idea doesn't justify the war in Iraq to me, but it does to some people. But it certainly would justify future wars to me.


Your an idiot and what's worse, an illiterate one, but don’t worry, I blame the no child left behind act.

Please. Fix the grammatical issues with your essay before you start calling people idiots.

[CrazyOne]

Hmmm... other countries viewing a totalitarian, oppressive regime as being the same as freely elected democracy... right. I'm sure the several hundred thousand Iraqis killed by Saddam were glad it was their own government doing the killing.
Your whole argument doesn't make much sense, even if you appeal to Ghandi. You seem to miss the point, the quote from Rousseau doesn't fit here because the Iraqis didn't have a choice. Saddam was not the will of the people, he was a dictator controlling the people by force. We're not forcing democracy on these people, we are freeing them so they can make their own choose, and allow the general will of the people to make the choice of the form of government they want.

[Sec24Row7]

Brodels, I love you.

I have yet to come across a stupid Libertarian.

Maybe that's because it takes a brain to get past mainstream politics and rhetoric.

[violentkitten]

Your an idiot and what's worse, an illiterate one, but don’t worry, I blame the no child left behind act.


http://www.firekite.com/store/misc/pics/forum22/retard.jpg

[Matrix]

Here's a site that is quit interesting.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[Hook Dem]

Lets see if I understand this correctly. You ask for no "F" Bombs but turn around and call someone an idiot, then an illiterate idiot, and want kind responses from those whom you forced this on by posting not only in here but the Club? If you don't want any criticism, then paste your "thesis" on the wall and admire it all by yourself! After all, thats what you are doing anyway. :lol

[RobinsontoDuncan]

OK lets see here first of all, you really need to come up with opinions for yourself instead of getting them line for line from a 6th grade social studies book

If your posts hadn't led me to believe you had never read one I would never have gone there, now upon reading your response I am just disgusted that having already known about the beautiful occurrences under imperialism, you were able to shrug off genocide, the degradation of human life, the exploitation of an entire people, and the total disregard for a nation and cultural autonomy and sovereignty.


British: Of course they profited from Africa and India, what else would be the point of them being there? My point is, the Native population made gains during this time too in overall wealth of the country. Before the British got there the natives were segmented into many tribes constantly warring with one another. When they were there, they weren’t. After they left, they reverted.

No they did not "profit" from Africa and India, they raped Africa and India, along the way they created extreme poverty and treated their subjects as less than human. The British even went as far as to slaughter innocent protestors in Calcutta in an act of Tyranny that cost 3000 lives. Is that ok to you. BTW, I'm curious, you don't want me to bring up facts from my sixth grade history book, but you casually ignore MERCANTILISM ? There was nothing about the British colonial system set up to "nation build" as you seem to be implying. Also, the Indian society has certainly not reverted back to "tribal warfare" or backwards society, the fact that most of their natural resources are now sitting in London does say something as to the effect of why they are one of the poorest nations on earth.

Did you not read anything I wrote on the cause of tribal warfare? It was because of Imperialism, the British also didn't stop it during their control of their African possessions, they simply continued to exploit, exploit, exploit.



"Indians" on Cuba, Haiti, and the Rest of the Caribbean Islands were almost all knocked out by disease not mass slaughter as were all the native Americans in the new world even the ones in the US)

Not so fast chief, the Spaniards frequently went into Native American villages and purposely spread epidemics such as small pocks by giving the villagers infected blankets or leaving dead and uncovered soldiers to rot in public.


Mongols: There are no accounts written by the Mongols themselves of their conquests. All accounts are written by the defeated and occupied. The fact remains that if an enemy surrendered, NO ONE was harmed and the local government was usually kept in place paying LESS of a tribute to the khans than they usually did to their original lord or king. During Genghis’ reign and afterwards the FIRST trade routes were established between East and West, enriching BOTH sides with new cultures, ideas, and ways of life.

God where did you learn history, remind me to smack the teacher, have you ever heard of the Silk Road? Mongol rule restricted trade between the east and west, trade that had been flourishing since the times of the Roman Empire (Travels was published around 1200 a.d.) And that is the worst attempt at deflecting the accepted accounts that everyone with a degree in history agrees with, the Muslim lands were turned into wastelands, buffer regions to "protect" the Mongol empire, trying to deny it makes you no different then those people saying the holocaust never happened, just a figment of our imagination.



Finally, to disagree with someone's opinions is fine. But to mock threaten physical violence, call someone a racist because of their ideas on events that happened hundreds even thousands of years ago on the other side of the world, and question their education and intelligence, in my opinion isn't.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is an uneducated redneck bully.

I was being sarcastic



Thus, any government is the representative of the society it is providing order for.
While government is a representative of a society in the international forum of ideas, the philosophies of that government don't necessarily reflect what the people actually want. Government can represent a group of people because the people actually want it that way or they can represent a group of people for other reasons.

Right, and the Iraqi people seemed to be far more peaceful under Sadaam, I am not saying that he didn't use terror to achieve this, but the fact of the matter is, that quite a few Iraqi's are fighting us right now, not creating a new government, so what have we accomplished if we have created more chaos, but no new and stable government? The upcoming elections are for a constitutional convention, not a government bureaucracy. No new leadership. No new government. If Iraqis are busy trying to force what they see as occupiers out of their country, they aren't nation building, they are just setting up a new Lebanon.

Do you realize that Iraqis know less about their own country then we do? Most still are without the electricity we knocked out in our invasion, and they didn't get to watch our presidential debates and decide whom they thought was going to do the best for their own nation. Does that seem like democracy? They don’t even have a say as to whom will do more for the nation they never destroyed.


What does it mean to be perfect? And can any one particular form of government ever be perfect for everyone in a society? Either way, the people often get what they want. It sometimes takes a good bit of time, but the best (although not perfect) form of government for a particular group of people will often come to the forefront over time.

My point exactly, thus the whole Democracy must come from within deal from Gandhi, I wasn’t blowing hot air, I had a point, a people must create a democracy on their own, and another nation doesn’t have the right to do so.


And you can't look at the Russian example and prove that it will apply in all or even most circumstances. We simply don't know what a single nation is capable of over hundreds of years when it comes to exerting power, and the collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't prove that other nations will collapse under similar circumstances.

Read that to yourself, and if you don’t feel a little ashamed that is very bad for you my friend because, frankly, I was hoping most people were feeling as I do, that I didn't really want to find out how well hegemony can exist.


Many Americans can tell you. And I'll reveal the answer since you don't appear to know. Our democratic republic is a political system that is tightly woven with capitalism. People may pretend that the political facets of communism are indeed most repugnant, but that's just a cover. The ability to control your own economic destiny is limited under a communist system. Communism is hated by many simply because of the economic implications of adopting it.

There are more people becoming millionairs in the PRC everyday than anywhere else in the world, their economy is the fastest growing economy in the world, and they are still attempting to achieve their ultimate goal, the creation of a population entirely made up of Bourgeoisies.

Also, just because Americans don't want to adopt communism doesn’t mean another culture shouldn't have the right to. Self-determination.


Again, that's not necessarily true. But you're missing the point anyway. Societies don't exert influence over the rest of the world for the sole purpose of spreading values. They do so because there is something in it for them politically or financially. You seem to think that nations spread values just to spread values. It goes beyond that.

I'm missing the point?


They do so because there is something in it for them politically or financially.

I'm sure that sounds fine to you, well if it does it looks like I'm talking to a brick wall, and you proved my point about the superiority complex.


And while people may not be content in a particular form of government, their daily lives need to degrade to a certain point before they'll take any action. It's hard for me to believe that East Germans supported communism in 1985 wholeheartedly but came to despise it just a few years later.

People are generally happy if they have a decent standard of living and their lives are comfortable and stable. If a nation is wealthy enough to provide for everyone under communism, people will be happy. If there are enough resources so that people can provide for themselves in a democratic republic, people will be happy.

People around the world, especially poor ones, don't care as much about political philosophy as they do about having the resources to live well.

I can tell you have studied the French revolution, but you’re exactly right, as long as a nation has a decent standard of living, they tend to support their government, and do you see a problem with that?

As far as your comment about the poor, you must surely know what happened after the peasantry became involved in the French revolution, after the middle class loosened the reigns?


but it's hard for me to imagine that the people were actually content with Saddam's rule. For your point to take hold, that needs to be the case.

And what if the people there end up embracing democratic politics? It still wasn't worth a war in my mind, but it certainly could happen. And if it does, those people will certainly think that the war was justified.

It isn't up for you to imagine. Do you realize that in history two democracies have developed in the middle east, and both are pretty shaky right about now (Turkey and Israel). This could very well be cultural phenomena, but when revolution starts in Arab countries we have seen gravitation towards theocracy, not democracy.


If another nation decides to attack us in the future, we better hope that our leaders disagree with you. If you are unwilling to suppress those hoping to destroy your country, you're bound to die as a nation quickly and without a fight. That idea doesn't justify the war in Iraq to me, but it does to some people. But it certainly would justify future wars to me.

Prove to me that Iraq was a threat and I will agree we had the need to fight them, not suppress them, that only adds to your enemies, it never diminishes them.


I'm sure the several hundred thousand Iraqis killed by Saddam were glad it was their own government doing the killing.

I'm sure the 100,000 plus Iraqi civilians were glad to die for our oil your quite right crazy.


Saddam was not the will of the people, he was a dictator controlling the people by force.

And as our invasion was elected by the people and we aren't currently using force to control them, I will concede your point.


and allow the general will of the people to make the choice of the form of government they want.

Good of you to assume they would be unable to do so for themselves, how very American.


Let’s see if I understand this correctly. You ask for no "F" Bombs but turn around and call someone an idiot, then an illiterate idiot, and want kind responses from those whom you forced this on by posting not only in here but the Club?

I didn't call him a fucking illiterate idiot, and I don't much care for people putting words in my mouth, or making an argument that makes no sense nor has any logical succession from the subject of our debate.

[scott]

If you are going to sit around a bitch at each other like idiots, you might as well say fuck in the process.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

civilized discourse isn't a group of people of sitting around and bitching at each other like idiots, and if you had bothered to read the posts on this thread you would realize that Brodels, Sec24row7, and myself are having an intellectual conversation about imperialism, albeit a bit testy, but civilized none-the-less.

[Guru of Nothing]

While reading is fundamental, the same can't be said for thinking and writing.

Nice job, r2d2.

[scott]

civilized discourse isn't a group of people of sitting around and bitching at each other like idiots

You're right.


and if you had bothered to read the posts on this thread you would realize that Brodels, Sec24row7, and myself are having an intellectual conversation about imperialism

Meanwhile, you are sitting around a bitching at someone else... like an idiot.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I'm just waiting for NBAdan's two cents

[Nbadan]

I'm just waiting for NBAdan's two cents

Nice work R2D2, in general I agree with all your thesis, but I disagree that we went into Iraq with a predetermined goal to set up a western-style Democracy in the Middle East, but mission creep being what it is, and all the other justifications for this war by the adminstration falling to pieces, it is were we find ourselves today. As a student of history, I don't recall a single instance where a democracy has been successfully instilled on a nation without the will of the people being behind it unless those indigenious people were severly repressed in the process. That's not to say that i don't think most Iraqi's don't want a democracy or a constitution, but they want one that they develop and fight for themselves, one that represents their views, secular or not, and not one that is trust upon them by a occuping power and a provisional government with little legitimacy. You can't underestimate the power of self-determination.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem is that there are 3 different groups that are encompassed by the word Iraqi., and they all have seperate goals and agendas.

Yet, we are forcing them under one democracy. Doesn't that seem kind of contradictory to anyone in here?

It all falls upon the same problem which was brought up earlier in this thread, the fact that the west has continually tried to group different cultures and peoples into borders that are unnatural.

We are not learing from these mistakes but simply repeating them over and over again.

I also agree with the fundemental arguement in the first post that people in this country have a view that unless the society chooses democracy, it is not being allowed a choice. This is the case in many situations, but forcing democracy on people is fundementaly flawed and wrong, as well as unwarranted in many cases.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, R2D2 I've been very impressed with the arguements you made, nice job. And Scott was just screwing around with you.

[Useruser666]

Nice work R2D2, in general I agree with all your thesis, but I disagree that we went into Iraq with a predetermined goal to set up a western-style Democracy in the Middle East, but mission creep being what it is, and all the other justifications for this war by the adminstration falling to pieces, it is were we find ourselves today. As a student of history, I don't recall a single instance where a democracy has been successfully instilled on a nation without the will of the people being behind it unless those indigenious people were severly repressed in the process. That's not to say that i don't think most Iraqi's don't want a democracy or a constitution, but they want one that they develop and fight for themselves, one that represents their views, secular or not, and not one that is trust upon them by a occuping power and a provisional government with little legitimacy. You can't underestimate the power of self-determination.

That's a good slip up! :lol

[ClintSquint]

http://sportsmed.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/dan_rather_a.jpg
"This thread has some great posts.
I'm taking notes!"

[Sec24Row7]

Britain: Listing one of the main reason's for why the British pulled out of India (Slaughter in Calcutta) is nice. That's really not excusable and one of the main reasons why they had to leave. How many Railroads do you think the Indian Government has built in the wake of Britain leaving? Not many. How do you think all the commerce in that country is achieved? By rail.


Spain: I'm actually reading a book on this now and there is no doubt that the Spanish were pricks, and destroyed civilizations and religions. They did almost nothing to improve the status of their subjects, but I have never read anything about leaving the natives disease ridden blankets. I know that this was an accepted tactic during the French and Indian war by the US, but I have never heard of the Spanish doing it.

Mongols: You don't know what you are talking about.

Last reply to this thread.

Arguing with someone for the sake of arguing is pretty pointless. You obviously view history with a rather intense bias towards just about everyone and everything considering the nation and people that are on top have ALWAYS gotten there by suppressing another.

If you can't relate to self preservation and think that the underdog is always right, then I see why you think a war like the one with Iraq is wrong.

However, by that standard, the attack of Afghanistan was wrong. Killing terrorists is wrong. They are "freedom fighters" trying to better their way of life by attacking the "oppresser".

You really dont have a leg to stand on, and even if you did someone could take it from you and by your philosophy, you wouldnt have any right to stop them.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

How many Railroads do you think the Indian Government has built in the wake of Britain leaving? Not many. How do you think all the commerce in that country is achieved? By rail.

As much as it pains me to concede here, you are correct, much of India's rail system was built by the British and they remain crucial to India's economy today. That certainly doesn't mean India recieved a net gain from colonialism.


Mongols: You don't know what you are talking about.


And you started out so well.... oh well I'm not really sure why we are debating the Mongol empire anyway as it has no modern value, but really I can tell that you are an active student of history and I like you so I am going to suggest that you read a little Roman history. Many historians equate their fall to the horrible balance of trade they maintained on the silk road as silk and luxuries came in, and huge amounts of gold went out.



Arguing with someone for the sake of arguing is pretty pointless. You obviously view history with a rather intense bias towards just about everyone and everything considering the nation and people that are on top have ALWAYS gotten there by suppressing another.

No, I'm not arguing with you for the sake of doing so, I actually answered your posts becuase they had some significance and were not the same old rhetorical dribble flowing throughout this forum.



If you can't relate to self preservation and think that the underdog is always right, then I see why you think a war like the one with Iraq is wrong.

However, by that standard, the attack of Afghanistan was wrong. Killing terrorists is wrong. They are "freedom fighters" trying to better their way of life by attacking the "oppresser".

You really dont have a leg to stand on, and even if you did someone could take it from you and by your philosophy, you wouldnt have any right to stop them.

Up until now, we were on the same page, I don't know what your talking about here so I'm not going to answer with an un-informed and generic response, if you would like me to, come back and clarify.



It all falls upon the same problem which was brought up earlier in this thread, the fact that the west has continually tried to group different cultures and peoples into borders that are unnatural.

Exactly right Manny, you hit the nail on the head, imperialism is not natural and causes more problems than it solves beacuse of it.


BTW, R2D2 I've been very impressed with the arguements you made, nice job. And Scott was just screwing around with you.

The feeling is very much mutual, thank you.



but I disagree that we went into Iraq with a predetermined goal to set up a western-style Democracy in the Middle East, but mission creep being what it is, and all the other justifications for this war by the adminstration falling to pieces, it is were we find ourselves today.

One battle at a time, you have been waving that banner for so long that the wind has torn it to shredds, that doesn't mean anyone has appreciated it, that of course is because everyone here for the most part accepts the administration's lies and complies with their short memory, we have forgotten WMD's and have focused on Sadaam, that is why I started this thread, to attack the very essence of their present justification matrix.

[Brodels]

I think you need to separate your ideas from your political views just for a minute. I'm concerned that you used a set of ideas to criticize the war in Iraq without really considering those ideas by themselves.

Separate your ideas from your anti-war feelings for a little while. I think you'll find that it's not as simple as believing that the war in Iraq is simply bad. Just as your ideas are more complex than you've revealed so far, the war in Iraq is full of positives and negatives.

If your ideas are really good ones, they will stand on their own without the need to keep defending the connections you made between them and the war in Iraq.


Right, and the Iraqi people seemed to be far more peaceful under Sadaam, I am not saying that he didn't use terror to achieve this, but the fact of the matter is, that quite a few Iraqi's are fighting us right now, not creating a new government, so what have we accomplished if we have created more chaos, but no new and stable government? The upcoming elections are for a constitutional convention, not a government bureaucracy. No new leadership. No new government. If Iraqis are busy trying to force what they see as occupiers out of their country, they aren't nation building, they are just setting up a new Lebanon.

What the United States did is speed up the process of history for the Iraqi people. I don't agree with our decision to do so, but it's not as simple as claiming that we created nothing but chaos.

It's clear to me that the kind of rule forced on the people by Saddam would have been vanquished at some point. We've had a multitude of Iraqis reveal both before and after the war that the Saddam regime was a net negative for that nation. It might have taken Saddam's death or deteriorating conditions or something entirely different, but Saddam's government would have faltered at some point just as all governments do. The United States sped up this process, for better or for worse.

So what's left? Some chaos, yes. But out of chaos comes clarity, at least eventually. It's not our role to force a democratic republic on people that don't want it, but it will create some positive opportunities for some or most of the people. And whatever the U.S. tries to do there, the Iraqi people will eventually make sure that the best form of government for them wins out in the end. It may take some time, but it will happen. The U.S. influence there will diminish, and Iraq will take a form that will undoubtedly differ from what we as a nation would like it to be.

The people were more peaceful under Saddam because they had stability and had not yet met the critical breaking point of discontent. It's hard to know if our influence will lead to more stability in the end. It could. Then again, it certainly may not.


Do you realize that Iraqis know less about their own country then we do?

That's a bold statement. To think that you know more about a place you've never been to than people who have lived there for decades is more than just a little bit pompous. It's certain that the people are more in tune with their culture than you'll ever be. And that's just the beginning. The people there know what it means to be an Iraqi, they know the physical layout of their nation, and they have a much better understanding of their own history than we can ever have.

While it's true that we may have a better idea of what is making news in Iraq on a daily basis, don't mistake that for us actually knowing more about the country than the Iraqi citizens do. That's the epitome of arrogance.


Most still are without the electricity we knocked out in our invasion, and they didn't get to watch our presidential debates and decide whom they thought was going to do the best for their own nation. Does that seem like democracy? They don’t even have a say as to whom will do more for the nation they never destroyed.

A democracy has nothing to do with electing leaders from another nation. For many or most Iraqis, life has deteriorated since we arrived. But it's shortsighted to claim that everything is bad just because that's how it is right now. You can't really know if the war will end up being a net positive or net negative for the people in Iraq until you give it some time. It's going to take several years to determine whether the people are better off after the U.S.-led invasion. It's simply too early to tell.


My point exactly, thus the whole Democracy must come from within deal from Gandhi, I wasn’t blowing hot air, I had a point, a people must create a democracy on their own, and another nation doesn’t have the right to do so.

Under certain circumstances, it is O.K. for one nation to create a democracy for another nation. I don't feel that it's justified in Iraq either, but the U.S. is simply speeding up history for the people. It's been messy and will continue to be messy, but the people will eventually get to determine what kind of government they get. And that's a choice that would have taken longer had Saddam stayed in power.

That doesn't mean that it was worth invading, but the Iraqi people have a better chance of determining their fate when their opponent is a nation thousands of miles away that won't be dumping resources and influence in Iraq forever. The people may have to fight the United States to get what they want, and even though it may take years, their going to have more success than they would have had against Saddam.


Read that to yourself, and if you don’t feel a little ashamed that is very bad for you my friend because, frankly, I was hoping most people were feeling as I do, that I didn't really want to find out how well hegemony can exist.

What I said was true. You implied that the U.S. would collapse in the long run because that's what happened to the Soviet Union when it tried to meddle with the rest of the world. I said that the circumstances are different here, and we simply don't know yet if the U.S. will meet the same fate for the same reasons. There are important economic, geographic, and idealogical differences between the former Soviet situation and our current situation.

Dig a little deeper instead of trying to be a prophet. The situations aren't the same, and we can't accurately predict how things are going to turn out.


There are more people becoming millionairs in the PRC everyday than anywhere else in the world, their economy is the fastest growing economy in the world, and they are still attempting to achieve their ultimate goal, the creation of a population entirely made up of Bourgeoisies.

That's because there are simply more people there and because that nation is going through a rapid period of industrialization. They are in a different stage of economic development as a nation than we are. When you industrialize rapidly in a nation with so many people, those things are bound to happen.

And just because the Chinese government is attempting to make everyone rich doesn't mean it's actually going to happen. If history is of any use of all to us here, it's a fact that communism hasn't succeeded in creating wealth as well as some other systems have.


Also, just because Americans don't want to adopt communism doesn’t mean another culture shouldn't have the right to. Self-determination.

Now you're arguing with yourself. Nobody is saying that other nations shouldn't be allowed to adopt communism if that's what they truly want. It's arguable that the majority of Chinese are content with communism, but as time goes on, it's also easy to argue that they don't.

The Chinese are approaching a crossroads. They have a history that suggests communism may be the best system for them. But they are going in a direction that suggests capitalism and democracy might work best for achieving their goals. Keep an eye on China. The liberalization will continue, and it's too early to tell where it will lead.


I'm sure that sounds fine to you, well if it does it looks like I'm talking to a brick wall, and you proved my point about the superiority complex.

Please explain. I don't understand.


I can tell you have studied the French revolution, but you’re exactly right, as long as a nation has a decent standard of living, they tend to support their government, and do you see a problem with that?

As far as your comment about the poor, you must surely know what happened after the peasantry became involved in the French revolution, after the middle class loosened the reigns?

I'm not really a student of French history, and I doubt that many people on this forum know much about french history beyond what they would learn in an undergraduate history course.

While it's true that people will support their government to an extent as long as they have a Buick in the garage and food on the table, it isn't quite that simple. If you look at the evolution and decline of a political system on a continuum, you'll see that the Iraqis were in a particular place in the evolution of their government. The fact that most had a decent standard of living doesn't necessarily mean that they were happy with their government. It could mean that discontent, if present, hadn't grown to the point of action yet.

Again, that doesn't mean that the war was justified. But it also doesn't mean that the people will most certainly be worse off in the end.


It isn't up for you to imagine. Do you realize that in history two democracies have developed in the middle east, and both are pretty shaky right about now (Turkey and Israel). This could very well be cultural phenomena, but when revolution starts in Arab countries we have seen gravitation towards theocracy, not democracy.

Again, it's not as simple as concluding that any particular form of government is good or bad for those people. There are many factors at work there. You have to consider how economically ready those nations are for certain political systems. You have to consider the motives and power of those challenging the status quo.

It's certainly possible that theocracy is what many people prefer. You'll even find some historical precedent to support that. But there are so many complex factors at work.

The Iraqis may choose something other than democracy, and if they do, they'll eventually get it. It might take lots of time, but they'll get it. But to believe that they were content under a form of government that intentionally suppressed the economy, killed its citizens, and created a culture of fear is just silly. It's fine that you are opposed to the war (I am as well), but it's clear that your doing nothing but feeding your anti-war agenda if you really believe that those people wanted death and suppression.

Again, consider your ideas on their own before tying them to your anti-war agenda.


Prove to me that Iraq was a threat and I will agree we had the need to fight them, not suppress them, that only adds to your enemies, it never diminishes them.

Again, here is where your anti-war rhetoric gets in the way of you having an honest discussion about ideas. It's clear that you don't really want to talk about general ideas, you just want to talk about war.

I never claimed that Iraq was a threat. And I didn't claim that we had a reason to fight them. You said that we don't have a right to suppress other nations. I claim that do under certain circumstances.

As long as you're willing to go on record as believing that the U.S. should not respond if another nation starts heaving nukes our way, I'll stop challenging you here. We could be attacked in the future on our own soil in a very big way. And if you don't want to suppress the enemy in that circumstance, you may as well kiss our nation goodbye.


I'm sure the 100,000 plus Iraqi civilians were glad to die for our oil your quite right crazy.

First the war was about some kind of superiority complex, and now it's simply because of oil. Which is it?

Answer: it's about more than oil.


Yet, we are forcing them under one democracy. Doesn't that seem kind of contradictory to anyone in here?

It all falls upon the same problem which was brought up earlier in this thread, the fact that the west has continually tried to group different cultures and peoples into borders that are unnatural.

It's true. It's a problem that we need to let them work out for themselves. It's not up to us to create or enforce borders.


Exactly right Manny, you hit the nail on the head, imperialism is not natural and causes more problems than it solves beacuse of it.

It think that's easy to believe, but it's impossible to prove. I'm anti-imperialism too, but it's almost impossible to really measure it's total impact on nations. It created problems, but it did generate wealth in many circumstances. I think we can agree that it's bad people in the short term, but I think it's impossible to measure it's true impact over generations.

Some would argue that imperialism is indeed 'natural' because it's been a part of human existence practially forever. I'm anti-imperialism, but it certainly has been a large part of human history.


that is why I started this thread, to attack the very essence of their present justification matrix.

I appreciate that you started this thread with a clear purpose and intent, but I still wish you would consider the ideas apart from your anti-war agenda. Since you came in with an agenda, it seems like you are attempting to make the ideas fit your argument instead of letting them speak for themselves. Your ideas are clearly encased in anti-war bias.

To end on a positive note, I applaud you for starting a very interesting debate. I'm anti-war just like you are, but for different reasons.

[Brodels]

Bump.

[whottt]

Fuck!

[whottt]

Fuck! I'm sorry. My fucking bad. I posted that in the wrong fucking thread. What can I say? I'm a fuckhead.

You fuckers kindly fucking excuse me...I'll be moseying the fuck on now...

Fucking thanks :)

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I think you need to separate your ideas from your political views just for a minute. I'm concerned that you used a set of ideas to criticize the war in Iraq without really considering those ideas by themselves.

Huh? No, I have been attacking imperialism, if my motivies were to attack our presence in Iraq it should have little effect on my over-all anti-imperialist essay.


Separate your ideas from your anti-war feelings for a little while. I think you'll find that it's not as simple as believing that the war in Iraq is simply bad. Just as your ideas are more complex than you've revealed so far, the war in Iraq is full of positives and negatives.
Again, Iraq is a very horrible war, Brodels, but I am using this thread to discuss imperialistic tendencies. If the war in Iraq has many positives I for one would enjoy hearing them. BTW I am still talking about imperialism.




What the United States did is speed up the process of history for the Iraqi people. I don't agree with our decision to do so, but it's not as simple as claiming that we created nothing but chaos.

Damn...were not going to get over this hump huh? Alright, did Saddam's regime account for the complete distruction of Iraq's economy, the loss of essential infrastructure, or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his citizens in his last two years in office?


It's clear to me that the kind of rule forced on the people by Saddam would have been vanquished at some point. We've had a multitude of Iraqis reveal both before and after the war that the Saddam regime was a net negative for that nation. It might have taken Saddam's death or deteriorating conditions or something entirely different, but Saddam's government would have faltered at some point just as all governments do. The United States sped up this process, for better or for worse.

So what's left? Some chaos, yes. But out of chaos comes clarity, at least eventually. It's not our role to force a democratic republic on people that don't want it, but it will create some positive opportunities for some or most of the people. And whatever the U.S. tries to do there, the Iraqi people will eventually make sure that the best form of government for them wins out in the end. It may take some time, but it will happen. The U.S. influence there will diminish, and Iraq will take a form that will undoubtedly differ from what we as a nation would like it to be.

You have to allow a people the right to progress at their own pace, deciding that we will be making more progress by changing them earlier than they are ready for will always create chaos. Are you actually arguing with me here?



The people were more peaceful under Saddam because they had stability and had not yet met the critical breaking point of discontent. It's hard to know if our influence will lead to more stability in the end. It could. Then again, it certainly may not.

As of right now we have turned the life of the average Iraq into a far worse nightmare then Saddam ever managed to do.




That's a bold statement. To think that you know more about a place you've never been to than people who have lived there for decades is more than just a little bit pompous. It's certain that the people are more in tune with their culture than you'll ever be. And that's just the beginning. The people there know what it means to be an Iraqi, they know the physical layout of their nation, and they have a much better understanding of their own history than we can ever have.

Really is it? How many Iraq's watched our presidential debate? How many Iraq's get to hear president Bush's speeches about our plans over there? Do you know how many Iraq's know about the elections coming up? Do you think they know it is for a constitutional convention. Remember we knocked out their electricty grids so many of them dont have the ability to watch the news. (we don't speak in arabic you know)



Under certain circumstances, it is O.K. for one nation to create a democracy for another nation. I don't feel that it's justified in Iraq either, but the U.S. is simply speeding up history for the people. It's been messy and will continue to be messy, but the people will eventually get to determine what kind of government they get. And that's a choice that would have taken longer had Saddam stayed in power.

altight, you claim to be anti-imperialistic, you claim the war in Iraq is not justified, can you specify when it is morally acceptable for one culture to creat the government for another one?





What I said was true. You implied that the U.S. would collapse in the long run because that's what happened to the Soviet Union when it tried to meddle with the rest of the world. I said that the circumstances are different here, and we simply don't know yet if the U.S. will meet the same fate for the same reasons. There are important economic, geographic, and idealogical differences between the former Soviet situation and our current situation.

Dig a little deeper instead of trying to be a prophet. The situations aren't the same, and we can't accurately predict how things are going to turn out.

I felt it morally repugnent that you would even want to know.



I'm not really a student of French history, and I doubt that many people on this forum know much about french history beyond what they would learn in an undergraduate history course.

The answer would be a) the reign of terror



While it's true that people will support their government to an extent as long as they have a Buick in the garage and food on the table, it isn't quite that simple. If you look at the evolution and decline of a political system on a continuum, you'll see that the Iraqis were in a particular place in the evolution of their government. The fact that most had a decent standard of living doesn't necessarily mean that they were happy with their government. It could mean that discontent, if present, hadn't grown to the point of action yet.

Right but you have the rightr to assume that they weren't. Let me ask you something, who have they been strongger in resisting? We have twice the military on the gorund than Sadaam Husein did in the last years of his tenure.







The Iraqis may choose something other than democracy, and if they do, they'll eventually get it. It might take lots of time, but they'll get it. But to believe that they were content under a form of government that intentionally suppressed the economy, killed its citizens, and created a culture of fear is just silly. It's fine that you are opposed to the war (I am as well), but it's clear that your doing nothing but feeding your anti-war agenda if you really believe that those people wanted death and suppression.

My point is that we will be the reason it will take time, and we have no right to be a road block in their political evolution.




Some would argue that imperialism is indeed 'natural' because it's been a part of human existence practially forever. I'm anti-imperialism, but it certainly has been a large part of human history.

You can not seriously beilieve this can you? After all the debate between myself and sec27row3 or whatever about the history of imperialism and you imply the possibility of a net gain?



To end on a positive note, I applaud you for starting a very interesting debate. I'm anti-war just like you are, but for different reasons

My debate may have been slightly mis-interpreted by you, Um.... I really was hoping to focus on imperialism, just because i consider our war in Iraq Imperialisic, doesn't mean i was trying to blurr any lines here.

I'm glad you responded.




Fuck! I'm sorry. My fucking bad. I posted that in the wrong fucking thread. What can I say? I'm a fuckhead.

You fuckers kindly fucking excuse me...I'll be moseying the fuck on now...

Fucking thanks

Well whottt what can you expect from a wrestling fan?

[whottt]

If you were a wrestling fan you'd realize that asking for no f bombs virtually gurantees you will get one.

[whottt]

And BTW, your views on this issue are trite cliches, much like those propagated by the media, and the same arguments can be heard nearly verbatim from any Eurotrash journalist, dimestore intellectual, or homeless guy...Tell me something I haven't heard before...

Much like the conservative establishment found itself out of touch with the American people in the middle and later parts of the 20th century, the leftist establishment is now just as out of touch with both reality and the views of most Americans. THe left hasn't got a clue how to solve the mid-east problem...not a fucking clue.

It was time to change things in the middle east. The situation had festered for too long and the peaceful approach had been tried ad nauseum...the left was weak, is weak, and lacked the will or the heart to do what needs to be done, to make the changes that need to be made...just do me a favor and remember your current stance 20 years from now...



1. What makes you think most Iraqis are against Democracy? Let's see what happens when the elections are held...

2.Your statement about governments being a contract with the people are naive when it comes to the middle-east, and show an alarming lack of knowledge of World history. Any time you have a minority imposing it's will on a majority, you will have a similar situation to what we see in many mid-eastern and communist countries.

3.Americans hate communism because it takes away the freedom of the individual, it takes away the desire to excel, to compete,...and it did not fail in the Soviet Union on it's own, it wasn't some great mass realization of the Soviet Leadership across the board...it failed because of us. It failed because it wasn't the will of the people, not matter how mighty the military forces that imprisoning them were. It failed because a government doing the thinking for millions could not defeat a country of near equal size and resources in which the government has millions thinking for it .

Would you really like someone to tell you whether or not you can go to school? To tell you what job you will do for the rest of your career? To tell you where you will live? Tell you who you will live with? In some cases who you will marry?



I don't think you understand the way communism works, it stifles creativity, it takes away the freedom of the individual, and most importantly it absolutely fails in it's philosophical goals...it does not eliminate class separation and poverty, it creates some of the worst examples of those things in our world.



Furthermore, you will find a many people living in communist countries that are proud of their nationality, you will not find many of them proud or happy with their form of government. That's why it fails, that's why why it has to be imposed on it's people with military power slaughtering millions, and pretty much turning those countries into a prison.

I want to you tell me if you have seen more Russians and Cubans defect to the USA, or vice versa? Do you see more South Koreans being shot by their own government, because they are trying to climb the wall to get into North Korea, or the other way around? Why do you think that is?

Do you know how the communists came to power in the Soviet Union? In China? In Cuba? In Viet Nam? In North Korea?

It wasn't a bunch of hippies sitting around singing kumbaya and talking about eliminating social classes and poverty...

It was very small group of people talking all the wealth and power for themselves...as well as taking away the freedoms of their people, all the while claiming it is being done for their own good. It's a form of government in which the government it above it's people...like most despotisms, aristocracies, monarchies and other near extince forms of government.

Those communist regimes came to power in some of the greatest mass murders in World History...

You're upset because some Iraqis have died, mainly due to the gurillia tactics of the minorty groups and terrorists withing that country, while the US is trying to establish a democracy, allow the majory to rule and self govern? Go find out how many Russians died in the establishment of the Soviet Union.

And make no mistake about it, if not for America it is very likely that you and I would not be able to pursue our own interests in life, and it is even more likely that we would not be sitting here in a public forum...criticizing our government...

Just go defect to a communist country before you start making the assumptions that most of the people in those countries want that type of government...just live there for a while and see if you can figure out that all forms of governments are not created equal...political correctness be damned. Shit isn't equal to gold, no matter how unfair that may seem...it just isn't.


Those people over there aren't stupid....there hasn't been a major communist government yet that was put in power by the will of the people, they were all put in power by corrupt governmental splits or military coups where a minority gained control of the military weaponry and used it upon the helpless peasantry to impose it's will.

[Nbadan]

And BTW, your views on this issue are trite cliches, much like those propagated by the media, and the same arguments can be heard nearly verbatim from any Eurotrash journalist, dimestore intellectual, or homeless guy...Tell me something I haven't heard before...

Much like the conservative establishment found itself out of touch with the American people in the middle and later parts of the 20th century, the leftist establishment is now just as out of touch with both reality and the views of most Americans. THe left hasn't got a clue how to solve the mid-east problem...not a fucking clue.

:lol

This whole post is filled with trite cliches.

Attack the media. Check.

Attack the Euros. Check.

Attack Intellectuals. Check.

Attack the homeless. Check.

Attack the left as being 'out of touch with America'. Check.

Defend your position no matter how bad the situation gets. Check.

[whottt]

You left "Call Dan a weinie" off your checklist.

Weinie! Check.


First of all, your weary causism bemoaning the "alleged" longstanding attacks on celebrated leftist strongholds can be easily exposed for the whiney, over-reactionary shit that it truly is with a simple analysis of the facts...

My post was nothing more than a reaction to the 30 year old beaten-to-death leftist playbook and agenda. If you think my responses were trite and cliched, imagine how tedious the leftist issues must seem to the rest of us...Just STFU already because...

You are blacker, kettle.

And I defended nothing...I merely stated the truth.

You lefties have had your agenda pursued for the past 30 years...you've essentially done nothing on foreign policy except appease and suck dick, and it hasn't solved anything...if anything it's made extremist causes stronger by allowing their belief that we are weak to grow unchecked...

Just STFU, lose like a man, and try to come up with a decent candidate in 4 years.

The blame game doesn't work when it comes to electing the President. It didn't work on Clinton, it's not going to work on Bush. It's an old worn out strategy, it's killing your cause, it won't work. If you feel the purpose of life is to do nothing more than bitch about things you can't control, then by all means continue do so...


Just don't try and claim you are a progressive, because you make Pat Buchannan look like Time Travel.

We've heard everything you guys have to say, and we have spoken by dropping a big fat F Bomb upon you.

You live in a Democracy, you cannot impose your will on the majority...either move to China or deal with it.

[Nbadan]

You lefties have had your agenda pursued for the past 30 years...you've essentially done nothing on foreign policy except appease and suck dick, and it hasn't solved anything...if anything it's made estremist causes stronger because of their belief that we are weak...a perception our leftist foreign policy has given them.

...and to think that it has only taken W and the Republican controlled congress 4 years to accomplish what it took liberals the 70's, 80's and 90's to accomplish.

Thanks to record spending by the current White House, we have record yearly deficits year after year, something not close to being matched by any other President, liberal or not, since Ronny, but yet 'liberals' are labeled as the big spenders by right-wing pundits even though entitlement programs make a miniscule part of the overall year budget.

The success of insurgents in Iraq against superior armed U.S. troops has revilalized radical Middle East islamic groups, even Al-Queda is rumored to be reconstituting becoming more clandestine and dangerous than ever. Many Iraqis insurgents publicly worry that their efforts to 'liberate Iraq from the invaders' will be hijacked by Bin Laden and his Islamic fundamentalist cause.

[Nbadan]

The blame game doesn't work when it comes to electing the President. It didn't work on Clinton, it's not going to work on Bush. It's an old worn out strategy, it's killing your cause, it won't work. If you feel the purpose of life is to do nothing more than bitch about things you can't control, then by all means continue do so...

:rolleyes

Give me a fucken break. Right-wing pundits have been playing the blame game on Clinton for 10 years now. About the only thing they accomplished was making Clinton a lame-duck President at a time when Congress and the White House should have been concentrating on the growing threat of fundamentalist Islamic radicals like Bin Laden and the Egyptian Jihad.

[Sec24Row7]

Right but you have the rightr to assume that they weren't. Let me ask you something, who have they been strongger in resisting? We have twice the military on the gorund than Sadaam Husein did in the last years of his tenure.

Errm...

You know how he gained that grip?

By commiting genocide and killing thousands of Shia men, women, and children and by gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds.

If we did the same thing, they would simmer down too, but we can't do that because no matter what you people want to think, we are the good guys.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Right Sec, we killed one hundred fucking (hell no one else listened) citizens, and are responsible for the state of 25,000 homlesess children, if that aint genocide, What the fuck is?

And whottt, look in the spurs forum and the chat room you are my favorite poster/ chatter-guy-person-thingy; but why not attcak my views on imperialism instead of one statement on the possibility of communism being liked by the people inside a communism nation.

[whottt]

I did...and you aren't the first person I've argued with when they have tried to label the US as an imperial power...I get a tremendous sense of irony at the US being labeled an imperial power, mainly because those that do it most often are Europeans, who just happen to live in the countries that were the most recent Imperialistic World powers...and whose Imperialistic screwing around in the mid-east we are now being forced to clean up.

They have never understood the differences between us and them...they think we are like them, but we aren't, and we never have been, shared Democracies or not....their centuries old Aristocracy is still in power to this day, within a Democratic structure, ...while we are a populist nation.

That "US the imperialist" sentiment that comes out of Europe is simply their intellectuals assuming that we will behave the same way their countries have in the past, the same way they do to this day in unseen ways...there is also a lot of that sentiment in the mid-east...and it's simply untrue...just look at our history...then look at theirs.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen an Islamic mouthpiece run off a list of US transgressions against the Islamic and Arab peoples of the world...and countless times they attribute to us wrongs that were done to them by the Europeans. This is one of the main reasons I have lost a lot of respect for the views of the intellectual left and the reasons used to justify terrorist attacks against the US.

Furthermore,

I do not think spreading Democracy is imperialism in any way shape or form. I also don't agree that the Irqis and Afghanis were massively opposed to a Democratic Society...

Beyond that, we aren't exactly imposing a Democracy in Iraq...there's a chance that the government chosen by their National Assembly will be a Theocracy...we don't want that to happen, we are trying to discourage it, but if that method is chosen by a Democratic process, by their people and their elected officials...we will not stand in the way, and Bush has gone on record already as saying this...

So I disagree with that take strongly.

Bush is a lot of things, silver spoon, greedy, maybe even dumb etc...but one thing he isn't is a false patriot...he truly believes in American Pie and thinks it is the solution...and I just happen to agree with him, because the alternatives are worse.

[Brodels]

Huh? No, I have been attacking imperialism, if my motivies were to attack our presence in Iraq it should have little effect on my over-all anti-imperialist essay.

The ultimate example of this so-called imperialism is the war in Iraq. I simply can't believe that you started this diatribe just to discuss imperialism.


Damn...were not going to get over this hump huh? Alright, did Saddam's regime account for the complete distruction of Iraq's economy, the loss of essential infrastructure, or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his citizens in his last two years in office?

No. But many people lived in fear. Many people did without even when the resources were available to help them. And people had few opportunities to do what they really wanted to do.

Is it worse now? It undoubtedly is for a lot of people. Probably for most of them. But you can't evaluate our impact on that nation yet and hope to accurately uncover the positives and negatives of our actions. It's too early to do that yet. You can't say 'the war is bad because the people are living in a crappy environment' and claim to be using any kind of foresight.

The book isn't closed yet. It's entirely possible that the people are going to begin implementing a system that will lead to prosperity. The U.S. needs to leave first and their needs to be some sort of stability there. What is the situation going to be like in two years? Five? Ten? Will the citizens of Iraq consider themselves to be better off than they were under Saddam? Will they consider the war to be the best thing that ever happened to them in five years?

We simply don't know yet. Was Saddam's rule better for the people? Will the war create stability and prosperity in the long term? Since we can't answer those questions yet, you can't possibly speak of our impact on the region in terms of 'bad' or 'good.'


You have to allow a people the right to progress at their own pace, deciding that we will be making more progress by changing them earlier than they are ready for will always create chaos. Are you actually arguing with me here?

Theoretically, yes. I agree that it's best to leave people alone in most cases. But that doesn't mean that chaos can't lead to something good faster than natural progression could. Out of chaos comes clarity. We simply don't know what is going to happen. Again, our actions there could turn out to be a net positive for the Iraqi people...or not.


Really is it? How many Iraq's watched our presidential debate? How many Iraq's get to hear president Bush's speeches about our plans over there? Do you know how many Iraq's know about the elections coming up? Do you think they know it is for a constitutional convention. Remember we knocked out their electricty grids so many of them dont have the ability to watch the news. (we don't speak in arabic you know)

You claimed that we know more about Iraq than Iraqi citizens do, and that's simply false. It may be correct that we know more about what's going on militarily and politically, but thinking that we actually know more about the nation is simply arrogant. We can't even begin to understand the culture. We don't know the geography as well as they do. We don't know what it means to be an Iraqi.

And it's possible that Iraqis know more about current events than we do. How many Americans know that the upcoming election is for a constitutional convention? Not many. And it would be great for the people to hear Bush's speeches about the country, the inability to listen to them doesn't result in ignorance. Don't underestimate the power of culture, word of mouth, and observation. I simply can't believe you really feel that you know more about Iraq than the Iraqi people. That epitomizes American arrogance.


altight, you claim to be anti-imperialistic, you claim the war in Iraq is not justified, can you specify when it is morally acceptable for one culture to creat the government for another one?

I don't know that it's ever acceptable for a nation to create a long-term government in another nation. But it is acceptable, under certain circumstances, for a nation to occupy another nation and govern it until stability is assured. If the U.S. was attacked by another nation, sometimes taking over that nation and creating a stable environment might be the only way to alleviate the threat. And while that isn't the case in Iraq, it has been the case in the past and could be the case in the future. If your national sovereignty is being challenged, you have every right as a nation to protect it.


Right but you have the rightr to assume that they weren't. Let me ask you something, who have they been strongger in resisting? We have twice the military on the gorund than Sadaam Husein did in the last years of his tenure.

Is it possible that Iraqis were happier when Saddam was in charge? Yes. Is it possible that Iraqis are happier? Yes. A nation is always going to resist an outsider. Warring groups can unite to push away an outsider. That's a given.

And it's too early to know what the result is going to be. It not as simple as looking at the resistance and using that to guage the Iraqi people. Time, natural opposition to outsiders, and instability all complicate things.


My point is that we will be the reason it will take time, and we have no right to be a road block in their political evolution.

I agree that we shouldn't be a roadblock. We shouldn't be there in the first place. But now that we are, we need to stay until there is some sort of stability. If we leave now, increased chaos will most certainly follow.

And while I agree that we shouldn't be there, it's possible that the war will end up being a positive for the Iraqi people. We shouldn't be there, but it doesn't mean that the people aren't better off with us there anyway. We simply can't tell yet.


You can not seriously beilieve this can you? After all the debate between myself and sec27row3 or whatever about the history of imperialism and you imply the possibility of a net gain?

Yes, because we have nothing else to compare it to. We don't know what those areas of the world would look like today had Europeans left them alone. You can speculate, but you can't say that imperialism was undoubtedly a net negative for those people. It's complex. Good things and bad things resulted from imperialism. It's easy to see the negatives, but it's more difficult to see the positives.

Either way, what happened in the past simply helped to shape our world. I think we can both agree that economic imperialism is abhorrent today, but we can't really know about a world that we weren't a part of, especially when we don't know what that world would look like today had imperialism never existed as an idea.


THe left hasn't got a clue how to solve the mid-east problem...not a fucking clue.

I agree with that. Unfortunately, the right doesn't have a clue either.


It was time to change things in the middle east.

The best thing we could have done to change things would have been to leave.


3.Americans hate communism because it takes away the freedom of the individual, it takes away the desire to excel, to compete,...and it did not fail in the Soviet Union on it's own, it wasn't some great mass realization of the Soviet Leadership across the board...it failed because of us. It failed because it wasn't the will of the people, not matter how mighty the military forces that imprisoning them were. It failed because a government doing the thinking for millions could not defeat a country of near equal size and resources in which the government has millions thinking for it .

We accelerated it's demise, but Communism failed because it doesn't have the economic principles necessary to sustain a developed country in today's world. But I guess it comes down to the same idea: an economic system that encouraged national prosperity over individual prosperity is always bound to fail.


And make no mistake about it, if not for America it is very likely that you and I would not be able to pursue our own interests in life, and it is even more likely that we would not be sitting here in a public forum...criticizing our government...

There is a great point in there, although I'm not certain that it is the one you are trying to make. America has been guilty of economic imperialism and meddling in the affiars of others for decades, but our standard of living is as high as it is because of it. Whether you like those policies or not, and I don't like many of them, I realize that we would have crappier lives if other people in other places hadn't been exploited over time.

I know that's not the point you were trying to make, but I think it's related.


Those people over there aren't stupid....there hasn't been a major communist government yet that was put in power by the will of the people, they were all put in power by corrupt governmental splits or military coups where a minority gained control of the military weaponry and used it upon the helpless peasantry to impose it's will.

That's true. I think that communism's ability to restrict freedoms is part of the reason for its failure. The economic implications of communism represent the other reason.


That "US the imperialist" sentiment that comes out of Europe is simply their intellectuals assuming that we will behave the same way their countries have in the past, the same way they do to this day in unseen ways...there is also a lot of that sentiment in the mid-east...and it's simply untrue...just look at our history...then look at theirs.

While it might be a stretch to call it imperialism, our country has been involved in exploitation in the past. We haven't followed the European model of full-fledged political imperialsm, but we've engaged in a limited form of economic imperialism, for better or for worse.

You don't always need political control of a nation to exploit it.


Bush is a lot of things, silver spoon, greedy, maybe even dumb etc...but one thing he isn't is a false patriot...he truly believes in American Pie and thinks it is the solution...and I just happen to agree with him, because the alternatives are worse.

I agree with your take on Bush. I'm not a big fan, but I think he's genuine most of the time. I simply disagree that his view of the world is the correct one.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

Brodels, the Phillipense (it's late i dont care how you spell it), i'll address the rest of this tomorrow

[smeagol]

there hasn't been a major communist government yet that was put in power by the will of the people, they were all put in power by corrupt governmental splits or military coups where a minority gained control of the military weaponry and used it upon the helpless peasantry to impose it's will.
Chile. Allende in the early seventies became president winning a democratic election.