Originally Posted by Ted

Wow, I am trying to fit all your reactions into a fitting answer. I agree with 5.56X45mm when he says it takes a long time to rebuild a nation. I agree with Missileer that democracy isn't the right word. But things get kind of dodgy afterwards.
There used to be a group of scientists called the "Vienna school" and they had a tendency to question the specific to the whole. Their relativism ended up in saying that the mass destruction of the Jews was a way of looking at the past and therefor not necessarily true. So it is a feeling I get when a specific group acts in the universal values of mankind. I just think that from a secondary level, there are no universal values. Food, shelter, safety are primair...all the others secundair and thus open for negotiation and interpretation.

I don't know the feelings of the Iraqees. I haven't been there and don't know much about them. But it is the "we let" where I think: how do you know that is what they want. They certainly don't want to be gassed by Saddam's thugs or murdered by his butchers. But how do you know they want a multi party democracy? A system that is based on Khamesaat or Sultan's rule for the last 1000 years isn't ready for such a kind of democracy.

This sounds so racist! Why shouldn't they want to be free? Come on man let's be real. I know that's what they want because I saw them with my own eyes on those lines the day Iraq voted for their Parliament! That was when the liberals should have learned something about the courage and the pride of a people. A democratic, free, multiparty system is exactly what every good man in the world asks for, with no differences whatsoever. Otherwise I would not explain how come Afghanistan and Iraq are taking this huge part in their political process. They are voting for those parties, voting for Parliament, participating. Looks like they believe they're ready. Maybe you should inform them they are not!
Was Japan a democracy previous to 1945? Hell no, it took the US ten yrs of occupation, military occupation, MacArthur wrote them their Constitution, they had never heard about democracy of freedom of speech and vote before, it was taught to the, and look at where they are now. Mmm weren't they ready either?

Originally Posted by Ted

Another thing about bringing peace is the haphazard way of deciding which country gets the attention. I haven't seen it in Ruanda (where buddies of mine were butchered), Liberia or many other African or Asian countries. Why not all or noone? This is what I mean with selective.

You haven't seen it in Rwanda because Bush was not at the White House, I tell you. And unfortunately so. Shouldn't we all have intervened? Shouldn't we Europeans had lift our fat asses and rushed there to help? Oh no, I guess they weren't ready for foreign intervention, right? Or were they? You know, people like you would say it's a risk when you intervene elsewhere, you risk to alter their equilibrium...
Why Iraq, Afghanistan and not Rwanda? Well we gotta start from one, I think. The point is the US exported the pre-conditions for democracy to a lot of countries, Italy, Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq... But wars break out when more than just one reason comes up. Geostrategic reasons, military reasons, political reasons, security reasons, and so on. Moral reasons can take a role. I wouldn't hijack this into a "Was the war on Iraq right or wrong?" type of thing, because it's been done before, but democratization was just one of the three main reasons Bush used to attack Iraq.

What you call my democracy is not a false democracy and is virtually the same democracy that they have in Switzerland, or in Australia, or in Ireland, or in the US.

Originally Posted by Ted

Is it a coincidence that you mention all AngloSaxon countries or Northwestern countries? This is exactly what I mean with social and cultural differences. People all around the globe had a way of making sure they had to eat, sleep and be safe. If you go beyond that you get things like: nationalism and the right to choose ones own government was explained in Vietnam to be communism. We all know what happened next. And if everything was okay, memorials in Arlington or the wall in DC wouldn't be so ambiguously interpreted by the people who fought there. And the people who live in Saigon aren't off so badly.... at least, not the last time I was there..

Oh, no, you are wrong, Ted. It was a mere coincidence in fact, I could have come up with a lot of non-Anglo-Saxon examples: Italy, Spain, Poland, Japan again, India, Israel, Turkey, Thailand.
And -hey- Saigon might have given you that impression, the last time you were there, ok. But you know my best friend and his family and all his community are American-Vietnamese. You have no idea what they say about the civil war that took place overthere. The communists butchered all their alleged opponents for decades after they took over. People starving and getting tortured in VN jails and torture chambers don't agree with you. Like I said, the Iraqis and the Afghanis are choosing their own government, are you kidding me? They are NOW. That's what the neocons wanted! They could not before, that's the difference.

Originally Posted by Ted

Just to make sure: I do not condone what Saddam did and I won't lose any sleep over it. All I wanted to point out is the selective attitude to call Iraq "evil" as Reagan called the former USSR and remove the one in charge for another one. Who garantees the people overthere that life will get actually better? And if you can't garantee that, should you undertake action.... and if so; why just there and not all around the globe?

1. Well every man on earth would agree Saddam's and the Taliban's, with all due differences, were the worst systems possible and nothing could have been worse than that. So there was no need at all to make sure it would be better off. Of course it is being better off now!
2. We should! The free democracies! The fat lazy and coward free democracies of Europe, along with the rest of the world's democracies.
3. Yes, right, you said that: around the globe.

You know Italian Guy, after reading your post I couldn't agree more with you. But, as expected, I do have a few remarks:

1)

This sounds so racist! Why shouldn't they want to be free?

I wouldn't go so far as to call the will to free or to live or the lack of this will racist. But to be sure I looked it up and this is what the Oxford Dictionary says:
racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

So I wouldn't call myself racist.... I'm not sure what you could call me but not a racist!

2) I agree on the fact that should intervene more often, especially when it is obvious that the basic principles of Human Rights are violated. As I said this should be around the globe and pursued with great spirit. The issues you mentioned are summarized in article 1, 2 and 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

But I couldn't find the article where it said that it should be the American model of Democracy that should be implemented. That is my point. I hold the American soldiers that died during any liberation in the highest esteem. As a matter of fact, I visit the celebrations of Memorial Day almost each year. I visit and pay my respect to many veterans during the celebrations of the 50, 55 and 60th anniversary of Europe's liberation. And I visited many of the military cemetaries to pay due respect.
But I'll repeat myself. I can't understand the automatic assumption that it is the American Model of governement that is the be implemented.

The reason why I agree wholeheartedly with your last post is because you ommitted this from your speech on liberty. And when we discuss the right on liberty, well I guess you and I shouldn't differ so much on that.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Ted

But I'll repeat myself. I can't understand the automatic assumption that it is the American Model of governement that is the be implemented.
Cheers

Could you explain something that I either don't understand or there is a fallacy with your explanation of democracy?

1. What is the "American Model" of government and what is wrong with it?

2. Is it a fact that the Iraqis and Kurds drafted their own Constitution instead of just implementing America's or the Allies?

3. Has Japan, Germany, or Italy been hurt by adopting a form of "American Model" of government compared with the one each had before?

4. Finally, what would you change with the way Afghanistan and Iraq are forming their government?

Now a statement about the other African Nations you mentioned as needing help. They did not attack us or an Ally of ours. The attackers were all young Muslim males from Middle Eastern countries. There are only enough American and willing Allies to take care of the most dangerous nations first, then God willing, we can bring some other European countries into a World coalition to help the suffering of Africa. Soon, isolationism will not be an option.

There are many good posts in this thread. Perhaps the best one on the forum right now.

The major problem in the countries America have invaded, that is Afghanistan and Iraq in this context (well, Somalia as well) - is that they, that is the Western World in general, have tried to change the political system over night - or at least wanted to. That simply cannot be done.

Take a look at the former Soviet Union - Mr Gorbatchev developed two doctrines, Glastnost and Perestroijka, as a tool for opening the closed system of communism to the western marked economy and democratic political systems. The leaders of the communist party looked at him as a mad man and we know what happened from 1989 until 1994. Russia have large problems in mafia, corruption and the social area in general, things are getting better but you cannot say "democracy" and believe people will adapt that in no time in a country that have seen communism for somewhat 90 years.

The same will happen in Iraq, Iraq was independent from British rule in 1932, but the British established monarchy lasted until 1958 and the 14th of July revoulution. The Iraqi Army coup led Qassim to the power who initiated friendly negotiations with the Soviet Union. That lasted until 1963 when he overthrown by Colonel Arif. Colonel Arif died in 1966 and his brother resumed power until 1968 when Saddam Hussein acceded presidency. The Rule of Saddan Hussein lasted for three and a half decade until US invaded in 2003 and replaced him with an American backed interim gouvernment.

The political geography in Iraq has changed, there are no democratic tradition in Iraqs modern history and they are divided by various religous fractions.

As Ted (?) stated earlier, this is a matter of comparing apples and peaches. The old generations of Iraq have no concept of what democracy is, those who are teenagers and young children in Iraq have much better chances of adapting the new politics brought in from the West. The old generations choose apples, the new generations choose peaches.

If we study Iraqs history, we will clearly see that Iraq will not be a fully democratic westernized country for at least two decades... The people of Iraq, Afghanistan etc, can participate in democratic votes but that is not natural for them to do so. For years they've been ruled by one party or one king - they can say "yes to democracy" but do they really have a clue of what it is about?

Since I am just a teen, then I can only draw from what my family in the military have said. My cousin-he went to Iraq, he told me that we probably won't be pulling troops out of there for almost another decade or two. My mother, she was in the army, said that if we do pull out, it would be worse than Vietnam

Originally Posted by Ted

You know Italian Guy, after reading your post I couldn't agree more with you. But, as expected, I do have a few remarks:

1)

I wouldn't go so far as to call the will to free or to live or the lack of this will racist. But to be sure I looked it up and this is what the Oxford Dictionary says:
racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

So I wouldn't call myself racist.... I'm not sure what you could call me but not a racist!

Please, Ted, I never called you racist. I said what you said sounded racist, because IMO it would implicitly attach a difference of aspirations to non-whites or no-westerners that they don't really have.

Originally Posted by sunb!

The people of Iraq, Afghanistan etc, can participate in democratic votes but that is not natural for them to do so. For years they've been ruled by one party or one king - they can say "yes to democracy" but do they really have a clue of what it is about?

I'm sorry, must be just me. I just find this totally unrespectful. "It is not natural for them to do so"???? Ooooohh I see now, it was natural for them to get butchered by the thousands, right?? My God how can you not see this is racism??
Every man has a natural right to freedom and there is NO freedom without democracy!
"They can say yes to democracy but do they really have a clue of what it is about?
Hell, are they stupid? They don't deserve to have democracy? Are they different men than you are in their need of freedom? What does that mean? Do you think the Japanese had a clue of what it was about in 1945? Do you think it was not natural for them?
I'm sorry but this drives me nuts I might have to chill down.

At the risk of talking in a circular argument, but I'll try one more to explain what I mean. If this doesn't work, well it automatically shows that our points of view differ. Then it would be safe to assume that theirs is different of ours.
The reason why I reacted on the racism-issue is that this about linking traits and charactaristics to a specific race. The Iraqi's aren't a specific race. Some of the things I said might have been generalizing and maybe even stereotyping, but this is still a long way of racism.

The second issue is the constant mixing of democracy versus the Human Rights. Nobody in the world wants to live in poverty and fear and we should try our hardest that nobody needs to. I'm just saying that a western oriented political system isn't automaticly the best.

Our laws and political history has developed over time along certain events in time. These events made for jurisprudence that we incorporated into our system. Nations at the other side of the globe haven't had these events and therefor miss the same needs and wants in their judicial and political system. Mind you; I'm not saying that they should copy a European system either. All that I'm trying to say is that getting rid of a tyrant doesn't mean implementing our system as a second phase.

To Missileer I want to say that there is nothing wrong with the American political system. It works overthere and that's fine! But that doesn't mean it will work everywhere. If it were so, wouldn't we have the same system overhere? Fact is we don't. We choose a different form of democracy then you guys did. Sure everybody above 18 has a right to vote. But we have a queen you have a president. We have a prime ministre and you have...? We have a multi party system you have a two party system. The whole counting of the votes differ as well...... This is what I mean with a different form of democracy.

So if this isn't clear... well then I am just more certain that we have a hard time getting nsync with our views. And I say once more, can you understand that "they" will sure as hell have different interpretations of the things we are trying to do?

Originally Posted by Ted

At the risk of talking in a circular argument, but I'll try one more to explain what I mean. If this doesn't work, well it automatically shows that our points of view differ. Then it would be safe to assume that theirs is different of ours.
The reason why I reacted on the racism-issue is that this about linking traits and charactaristics to a specific race. The Iraqi's aren't a specific race. Some of the things I said might have been generalizing and maybe even stereotyping, but this is still a long way of racism

.

Oh well it seemed to me that you somehow attached certain predispositions to the Caucasians, the whites, the Anglo-Saxons, the Westerners. Predispositions to live under a democratic system.

Originally Posted by Ted

The second issue is the constant mixing of democracy versus the Human Rights. Nobody in the world wants to live in poverty and fear and we should try our hardest that nobody needs to. I'm just saying that a western oriented political system isn't automaticly the best

.

Can you name me at least three countries in the world where human rights are respected and at the same time there is no democracy? Don't you see that a shift to democracy means a shift towards respect for human rights? Plus, isn't it a human right to freely express own's ideas in public? Isn't it a human right to be able to freely choose one's government? Isn't it a human right to have a country where one can have a fair trial in court and not a joke trial? Don't these things happen where there is democracy only?
And, what do you mean by "western oriented system"? You mean liberaldemocracy was born in the West, well yeah, maybe, but please explain me the case of Japan prior and post 1945. Well oh yeah of course they were industrialized, modernized, all that. Wasn't Saddam's Iraq a modernized and industrialized country as well? In Saddam's Iraq people were even more educated than 1940's Japaneses were.

Originally Posted by Ted

Our laws and political history has developed over time along certain events in time. These events made for jurisprudence that we incorporated into our system. Nations at the other side of the globe haven't had these events and therefor miss the same needs and wants in their judicial and political system. Mind you; I'm not saying that they should copy a European system either. All that I'm trying to say is that getting rid of a tyrant doesn't mean implementing our system as a second phase

.

Our system... man I'm gonna tell you this: What you are calling our system was not the Italian system prior to 1945. It was not Japanese system prior to 1945. In my country it was referred to as the AngloAmerican system. Now it is referred to as the Western system, because it has stretched to all the Western countries (and Japan, India etc). In a decade's time the Afghanis won't call it "American democracy" anymore, they will hopefully call it "Democracy", period. So uhm you say getting rid of a tyrant doesn't mean implementing our system as a second phase, well yeah but it would be good if it did.

Originally Posted by Ted

To Missileer I want to say that there is nothing wrong with the American political system. It works overthere and that's fine! But that doesn't mean it will work everywhere. If it were so, wouldn't we have the same system overhere? Fact is we don't. We choose a different form of democracy then you guys did. Sure everybody above 18 has a right to vote. But we have a queen you have a president. We have a prime ministre and you have...? We have a multi party system you have a two party system. The whole counting of the votes differ as well...... This is what I mean with a different form of democracy.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but let me say this: Ted, come on, don't mess with this. Are you seriously gonna say that Dutch democracy is sooooo different than American democracy because you guys have a totally powerless Queen and they have a Presidential system, when we are talking about democracy as a whole? I mean don't both Americans and Dutchmen enjoy the same right to elect their own governments? To freely travel abroad? To have a system of checks and balances? To have a free and just trial? Who cares if the US President is elected by the people and the Dutch PM by the Parliament? Is that such a huge difference that they have Reps, Dems and Indeps in the US and we Italians have two coalitions? Don't you think the Afghani system is being let become "their own" system? They elected their shura, they still cherish a relevant role to Islam, they weren't deprived of any of their cultural traditons or features that just didn't clash with human rights.

Originally Posted by Ted

So if this isn't clear... well then I am just more certain that we have a hard time getting nsync with our views. And I say once more, can you understand that "they" will sure as hell have different interpretations of the things we are trying to do?

Oh yes, sure, and they have all the rights to have them. Will it lessen their right to it or they are doomed to tyrants, since like you said "multiparty system" is not natural for them?

On a sidenote, Ted, you're new here, so I want to say I don't mean to be rude or unpleasant in anyway. I'm sorry if I did, guys here know I am an easy going person. And you I find you very polite and it's good talking to you.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

I'm sorry, must be just me. I just find this totally unrespectful. "It is not natural for them to do so"???? Ooooohh I see now, it was natural for them to get butchered by the thousands, right?? My God how can you not see this is racism??

Every man has a natural right to freedom and there is NO freedom without democracy! "They can say yes to democracy but do they really have a clue of what it is about? Hell, are they stupid? They don't deserve to have democracy? Are they different men than you are in their need of freedom? What does that mean? Do you think the Japanese had a clue of what it was about in 1945? Do you think it was not natural for them? I'm sorry but this drives me nuts I might have to chill down.

Italian Guy, this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. My post was intended to cast some light on the political history of countries and the fact that changing a political system is not done over night and may take decades to do.

I believe you lost some of the context, but let me know if the post was offending to you and I will remove it.