|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 19th, 2004 08:35 PM | ||
| Preechr |
How VERY Libertarian of you, Kev. Color me impressed! Zhukov, gotta link for that? |
|
| Sep 19th, 2004 01:47 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I think it's interesting that the article starts with a quote from Wilson, who with his Sec. of State, Bryan, managed to fuck up an interfere all throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. All was of course done in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," but it was also done so with a Crusades-like notion that we neeed to "save" te rest of the world. I think the idea is noble and sweet, but it often just leads to problems. Sometimes we need to let people fuck up and go through problems, right? |
|
| Sep 19th, 2004 01:58 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 18th, 2004 04:39 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND THEM, CHIMP, NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THEM 
|
|
| Sep 18th, 2004 03:54 PM | ||
| AChimp | WTF. Arab terrorists are mostly driven by their religion, not their "lack of freedom." | |
| Sep 18th, 2004 03:27 PM | ||
| conus |
Quote:
I think that, with the possible exceptions of North Korea and China during the Greap Leap Foreward, the citizens of those countries lived under more comfortable physical circumstances than American rhetoric would have you believe. They may not have had a snowmobile in every garage, but they had the essentials and, probably more importantly, were given secular educations. They weren't taught to sacrifice themselves for the greater glory of the fucking tooth fairy. |
|
| Sep 18th, 2004 11:58 AM | ||
| Preechr |
I'm hoping that, despite the self-interested motivation (which is the only real impetus behind any nation's foreign policy,) fighting an actual war on terror in a way in which it might be won could discourage the use of it to the degree America's military might has discouraged the idea of traditional war. I read an article recently that disproved (to me anyway) my original theory that terrorism rises out of poverty and ignorance... ie: Palestinian terrorists come from the wealthier and more educated classes, and Saudi, the home of most of 9/11's terrorists and Bin Laden, is hardly a ghetto state. Terrorism is bred most efficiently in an oppressive environment. The amount of terrorists in a given area is inversely proportional to the personal freedom allowed by that area's government. The only effective weapon in a WOT is therefore freedom, and you can hardly shoot that out of a gun. While military battles will be necessary to get the party started, just as in Vietnam, the only way to win the overall war is through political means. There's a lot of that going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan right now... it's too bad the media is so infatuated with the military efforts because official information regarding the formation of the governments over there is sparse. Al Sadr's downfall was encouraging. His insurgency failed because his methods lost all popular support, partly due to our use of Iraqi soldiers but mostly because the local Iraqis decided they preferred an end to the violence. They believed more in Sistani than in the insurgency. Maybe the whole Iraqi population will eventually get behind the idea of self-government. Maybe there's already a trend in that direction. There's no way for us to see that, unfortunately, since all information is being filtered through the American election. I'm hopeful. |
|
| Sep 18th, 2004 01:16 AM | ||
| conus | I agree that we owe them a shot, to say the least. But I don't believe the U.S. Government will put forth a sufficient effort to bring about what would be best for the Iraqis. They'll help as long as it doesn't get in the way of their own interests. Despite popular belief, the U.S. government isn't in the business of helping people. Look up the stats. You'll see that in the years following the Marshall Plan, compared with other affluent industrialized nations, they've given very little in the way of non-military foreign aid. Even the Peace Corps was riddled with CIA operatives. Thier own interests are what drives them. | |
| Sep 18th, 2004 12:17 AM | ||
| Preechr | We're not too far apart on this, but I can't help but think, specifically BECAUSE we've spent so many years fucking with other folks' governments and lifestyles in our fight against Communism, that we pretty much owe the third world a shot at what we've held beyond their reach. | |
| Sep 17th, 2004 11:33 PM | ||
| conus |
Quote:
In the first place there are a lot of Iraqis right now who are risking everything to be free of American occupation. Nothing new about that. Over the last fifty years the U.S. government has been responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings, either directly or through subsidization of their right-wing puppet dictators. Who was freed? Who benifited in the Philippines, or in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, etc., etc.? Do you really believe that George W. Bush and company care whether or not the Iragi people are 'free?" Boy this sure sounds familiar. Prior to the first gulf war, George Bush Sr. gave the public numerous reasons. When one didn't bring the response he wanted, they would issue another, and another, and another. Finally, we were told that by attacking Iraq we would be restoring democracy to the freedom loving Kuwaitis. That one stuck. Believe this. You never will see a western-styled democratic system in Iraq. It if ever happens it won't be in your lifetime. No matter how bad Saddam's regime was, for most Iraqis it was preferable to what is happening now and what will continue for years to come. The U.S. government has turned Iraq into a hell on earth. |
|
| Sep 17th, 2004 09:24 PM | ||
| Preechr | Do you personally believe freedom is worth fighting for, conus? | |
| Sep 17th, 2004 06:12 PM | ||
| conus | Sounds pretty good. Now someone needs to drive these points home to all those people who are related to the 30,000 civilians killed or injured by the U.S. military. | |
| Sep 17th, 2004 02:41 PM | ||
| Preechr |
A Democratic World Is No Neocon Folly The facts are in: Freedom is better. Max Boot September 16, 2004 "The world must be made safe for democracy," Woodrow Wilson declared in 1917. Ever since (and arguably before), that imperative has occupied a central place in U.S. foreign policy. Democratic and Republican presidents alike have seen the need to spread liberty abroad to protect liberty at home. Yet, because of the difficulties we are encountering in Iraq, the democratization imperative is under attack today from both left and right. From Pat Buchanan to Paul Krugman, the cry has gone up that the stress on exporting American ideals is a plot by nefarious "neoconservatives." Even John Kerry — the nominee of Wilson's own party — sounds disdainful of attempts to spread freedom to places like Cuba and Iran. Maybe, the cynics suggest, some people (the Arabs, for instance) are simply unfit for self-rule. More sophisticated versions of this argument suggest focusing on economic development first, to be followed eventually by political liberalization. If impoverished nations rush to hold elections, realpolitikers fear, the result could be the rise of "illiberal democracies" or instability and civil war. Better to deal with enlightened despots like Hosni Mubarak or Lee Kuan Yew rather than risk the messiness of freedom. Anyone seduced by these arguments would do well to peruse two important studies conducted by scholars with impeccable liberal credentials. The first is a new book called "The Democracy Advantage," written by Joseph Siegle, a former humanitarian aid worker; Michael Weinstein, a former New York Times editorial writer; and Morton Halperin, a former staff member of the ACLU and the Clinton administration who now works for George Soros' Open Society Institute. They're hardly neocons, yet in a synopsis of their book published in Foreign Affairs they make a powerful case for democracy promotion. Siegle, Weinstein and Halperin puncture the myth that democracy works only in rich nations. In fact, many poor countries have freely elected governments (think India, Poland and Brazil) while some rich ones (think Saudi Arabia and Singapore) do not. Far from economic development being necessary for democracy, they argue that democracy promotes economic development. Free countries grow faster than their more repressive neighbors. They also perform better on social measures such as life expectancy, literacy rates, clean drinking water and healthcare. And they are less prone to armed conflict. Skeptics of democracy cite a few cases of impressive economic performance by authoritarian regimes such as South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s and 1980s. But more common are dysfunctional kleptocracies like Congo, Syria and North Korea. According to Siegle, Weinstein and Halperin, autocracies are prone to wild swings in economic and political performance. Democracies, with greater openness and accountability, generally produce more consistent results. They note that "the 87 largest refugee crises over the past 20 years originated in autocracies," and they cite Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's observation that "no democracy with a free press has ever experienced a major famine." In light of these findings, Siegle, Weinstein and Halperin urge the U.S. to eschew a "development first, democracy later" model in favor of spreading democracy first and foremost. That case is strengthened by a study last year in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton (and a Clinton administration veteran), and Jitka Maleckova, a professor of Middle Eastern studies in Prague. They reject the conventional wisdom that terrorism is rooted in poverty and lack of education. It does not comport with data showing, for instance, that Palestinian suicide bombers are wealthier and better educated than the general population. After studying all the available research, they conclude "that any connection between poverty, education and terrorism is, at best, indirect, complicated and probably quite weak." Why, then, do some places produce more terrorists than others? Krueger and Maleckova write: "Apart from population — larger countries tend to have more terrorists — the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists. Poverty and literacy were unrelated to the number of terrorists from a country. Think of a country like Saudi Arabia: It is wealthy but has few political and civil freedoms. Perhaps it is no coincidence that so many of the Sept. 11 terrorists — and Osama bin Laden himself — came from there." Paul Wolfowitz couldn't have said it better. Of course, even admitting that democracy promotion is in U.S. interests, there will be differences over how to go about it. Anyone not on the administration's payroll would concede that its performance has been far from flawless. But President Bush is on the right track because he recognizes the democracy imperative that too many of his critics unfairly dismiss as neocon nuttiness. |
|
