Reply With Quote
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.
"The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within."
-Mahatma Gandhi
What is government? Government is the ins ution 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.
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.
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.
And that's what makes our country great!
So, how do you explain Japan, Germany, Italy, and others...just to name a few countries where democracy was forced from without?
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.
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 cons ution, as did the Japanese.
And on the subject of the Japanese it might intrest you to know that they too were a cons utional 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.
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
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.
Last edited by Sec24Row7; 01-10-2005 at 01:04 AM.
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
And then he became a fascist dictator. Your point?
Such as radical Islam is trying to do with the non-Muslim world?
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....and 2) true democracy is dervied from the general will of the people.
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.
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.
But what you don’t know is that: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.
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.
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 01-11-2005 at 06:04 PM.
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 and act smart.
oh yeah... YOU...for the comment above..
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.
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.
"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.
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.Thus, any government is the representative of the society it is providing order for.
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.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.
[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.
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.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.
And you can't look at the Russian example and prove that it will apply in all or even most cir stances. 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 cir stances.
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 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.
Others in this thread have shown that to be untrue. Not every society favors their form of government at any given time.The truth is that people are always going to be partial to their form of government
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.society will always have a superiority complex over their own values.
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.The Unites States has begun to adapt the policy of the Soviet Union,
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.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.
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.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
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Please. Fix the grammatical issues with your essay before you start calling people idiots.Your an idiot and what's worse, an illiterate one, but don’t worry, I blame the no child left behind act.
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.
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.
Your an idiot and what's worse, an illiterate one, but don’t worry, I blame the no child left behind act.
Here's a site that is quit interesting.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
