American freedom, American values

  • News
  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
  • #126
467
1
Sure, I'll explain Turkey:

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

"First with skirmishes , in time with proper army troops, Ataturk and his army friends' armies started fighting the enemy. Ankara was chosen to be Ataturk's headquarter for its central location and the seeds of a new country were planted there. He and his friends wanted to replace the Monarchy with a Republic. The War of Independence took some three years and by the end of the year 1922, all of the invaders had left the country. The Ottoman Sultan fled in a British boat. The birth of a new nation had begun."

And later in the 1980s...

http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/history_of_turkey.html

"The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the True Path Party of Suleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of Ismet Inonu and Bulent Ecevit on the left. A coup was staged in 1971, ousting a fractured parliament under the Prime Minsitry of Demirel. Under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey invaded Cyprus in order to prevent a coup intended to unify the island with Greece, creating a confict that to this day is still not resolved. The fractured political scene and poor economy led to mounting violence betweeen ultranationalists and communists in the streets of Turkey's cities. A paralyzed parliament and increasing death-toll prompted a coup in 1980, once again on Demirel's watch. Within two years, the military had returned the government to civilian hands, but had banned Demirel, Ecevit, and a number of other politicians from politics for life."
 
  • #127
140
0
JohnDubYa said:
Sure, I'll explain Turkey:

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

"First with skirmishes , in time with proper army troops, Ataturk and his army friends' armies started fighting the enemy. Ankara was chosen to be Ataturk's headquarter for its central location and the seeds of a new country were planted there. He and his friends wanted to replace the Monarchy with a Republic. The War of Independence took some three years and by the end of the year 1922, all of the invaders had left the country. The Ottoman Sultan fled in a British boat. The birth of a new nation had begun."

And later in the 1980s...

http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/history_of_turkey.html

"The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the True Path Party of Suleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of Ismet Inonu and Bulent Ecevit on the left. A coup was staged in 1971, ousting a fractured parliament under the Prime Minsitry of Demirel. Under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey invaded Cyprus in order to prevent a coup intended to unify the island with Greece, creating a confict that to this day is still not resolved. The fractured political scene and poor economy led to mounting violence betweeen ultranationalists and communists in the streets of Turkey's cities. A paralyzed parliament and increasing death-toll prompted a coup in 1980, once again on Demirel's watch. Within two years, the military had returned the government to civilian hands, but had banned Demirel, Ecevit, and a number of other politicians from politics for life."
but i thought it demanded an external force?
anyway, my point was how the country evolved on its own, which you should have discovered by now... thank you for providing proof for that :smile:

and notice how the latter was a coup, my friend... the fact that the word "military" is involved, doesn't mean there was a war... so there's no need for war, and a potent populace can make changes, which they choose themselves...
so are you saying the war on iraq is unneccessary? are you finally caving in?
 
  • #128
140
0
kat said:
Huh? Please quote the phrase where I have said "change has always come at the end of the gun" and that support and incitement from other countries culiminates into what actions that directly create a democracy?

support this with links, facts and figures please.

*boggle* questions for you, who is Lakhdar Brahimi? and what recent action is he known for? who does he represent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhdar_Brahimi
what does that has to do with anything?? like i said, the iraqis are not allowed to choose on their own...

"Furthermore, it has almost always been enforced by the Elites of a society or at the end of the barrel of a gun.(I'm trying hard to think of a one instance where this wasn't the case) "
oh, so you don't like to being put words into your mouth (me leaving out the "elites of a society")? then i suggest you consider real hard about not doing it yourself.

btw... let me give you a few cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany <- quite unviolent workers revolution... more of an uprising really...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_the_Italian_Republic ... okay, there had just been a war, but the creation of the republic itself was quite peacefull...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia - as far as i remember, no revolution... just slow change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria - kinda unique history there... they weren't unfamiliar with democrasy after the brief introduction to dictatorship, so that was no biggie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium - who knows? :biggrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

yes, indeed, very few examples of countrys adapting democrasy without war and violent revolution...
 
  • #129
467
1
The point is that democracies often have to be implemented by force, and sometimes this force must come from an external source if the dictatorship is particularly brutal.

Does this sound like Iraq?

but i thought it demanded an external force?
Here is what I said earlier in this thread:

To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force. Almost every democracy that I can think of was created from violent overthrow.
Nowhere do I suggest that only an external force is sufficient to install a democracy. (And why would I say it, being an American and knowing our country's history?)

anyway, my point was how the country evolved on its own, which you should have discovered by now...
I was already aware that Turkey evolved into democracy on its own. That doesn't negate anything I have said, but it does show that violence is often necessary.

Now, what does this have to do with Iraq, unless you are naive enough to think that Iraq could have evolved into a democracy of its own if we only had left it alone in the hands of the Husseins?
 
  • #130
140
0
JohnDubYa said:
Now, what does this have to do with Iraq, unless you are naive enough to think that Iraq could have evolved into a democracy of its own if we only had left it alone in the hands of the Husseins?
well, i simply just countered your argument about a change for democrasy demanding violence... that was about ten examples there, but you cling on to turkey of course...
you said democrasy couldn't come without litterarily force it over peoples heads, and that forcing it was a great and lovely thing in your perspective... and noone else had done it different anyhow from your knowledge... well... there (in my previous reply to kat) is some knowledge about it...
actually, i'd say that iraq had the greatest potential of becoming a democrasy of all the islamic countrys in the area... it was one of the most educated middle eastern countrys and had students groups, and women attending universities and were allowed to get jobs... it was a very western oriented country, so i suspect there could be some change along with some outside influence, yes... but that's a totally irellevant question since the was has already happened...

anyway. my point was, that war is unccessary and shouldn't be used to force idealism on other people... the countrys outside of iraq are pissed because you do it, and well, your soldiers experience the other reactions on their own skin...
this thread is about why people react so strongly when you force your values on them... "why don't they want them and bla. bla. bla" ... so it's not just about iraq... it's about consequences of action and reflection upon actions...

my post was a reply to your and kats claim, nothing else...
 
Last edited:
  • #131
467
1
well, i simply just countered your argument about a change for democrasy demanding violence... that was about ten examples there, but you cling on to turkey of course...
Weren't you the one that offered Turkey as an example in the first place?

Sometimes you can force a country into democracy through the actions of a global boycott, thus crippling the country financially (see South Africa). But the boycott by the UN was so weak and misguided that, if anything, it strengthened Saddam's power. That Oil For Weapons program was a real smooth move.

actually, i'd say that iraq had the greatest potential of becoming a democrasy of all the islamic countrys in the area...
Sure, NOW. But that is only because we forced a dictator out of power, an action you opposed.

Ask the Kurds how likely it was that Iraq was going to form into a democracy on its own with the Husseins in power.

I sometimes think that you completely misunderstand just how brutal Hussein's regime actually was. In terms of outright cruelty and control over the population, it probably eclipses Stalin's. Luckily with the USSR, power was not handed down to offspring, so at some point more reasonable politicians took over as the older leaders died. However, neither son of Saddam's was going to be any easier on the population.

anyway. my point was, that war is unccessary and shouldn't be used to force idealism on other people...
And as I said many times, we have done it before with good results. Japan is a shining example of how the US crafted a government that endured. Panama is much better off because we invaded.

I am sure you opposed the Panamanian invasion as well. Is this correct? If so, what would be the condition of Panama and its people if we had taken your advice?

And why don't we see vicious anti-American actions by Hispanics?
 

Related Threads for: American freedom, American values

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
73
Views
6K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
8K
Top