News Does the US stand for democracy in the world?

[Anttech]

I'd still disagree with Anntech's post. Culturally, our history isn't that different from Great Britain's (in fact they were the same until a couple hundred years ago). There's definitely a different outlook about world politics, but it probably has more to do with the difference between a country separated from every major threat to it by large oceans and the outlook of countries that have been very aware of their neighbors' proximity to them.

The US and UK have common links in our History, but the culture between them is very different. I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games. The US is a Mighty force in the world, but your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now.. The UK's policies are very much more subtle they need to be

 

[BobG]

The US and UK have common links in our History, but the culture between them is very different. I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games. The US is a Mighty force in the world, but your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now.. The UK's policies are very much more subtle they need to be

The foreign policies of UK and France are much more cautious than the US, now. The root of a lot of the problems in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa is the way Europeans carved up those regions with little regard to the folks that actually lived in those regions. The US is just the next foreign power to think it has the answer to the world's problems.

The US isn't doing any better than European powers did, but I'd say European countries learned the hard way that winning hearts and minds doesn't work rather than learning how to win hearts and minds. It would have been nice if the US had learned something from the problems European countries faced, but it seems as if we want to learn all those hard lessons ourselves.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The US and UK have common links in our History, but the culture between them is very different. I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games. The US is a Mighty force in the world, but your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now.. The UK's policies are very much more subtle they need to be

And you don't think this is really just as situational issue and not really having to do with "learning"? The people who started this country were from England and carried all of what they had learned with them didn't they? The people who have populated this country came from several countries all over the world and brought what they had learned with them too didn't they?

Every "empire" in history that has come to wield vast power financially and militarily have been less than subtle in their policies and when they lost that seat of power realized their position would not allow them to continue in such a manner. It's just the way it happens. Though it would be nice if someone somewhere along the way got a clue I agree.

 

[Anttech]

And you don't think this is really just as situational issue and not really having to do with "learning"?

I believe it is a cultural and idealoligical difference. Both of which are learned would you not aggree? The culture in the US is very different from Europe, also the UK. Just because we speak the same lanagague doesn't consitute we have the same ideals and political culture.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe it is a cultural and idealoligical difference. Both of which are learned would you not aggree? The culture in the US is very different from Europe, also the UK. Just because we speak the same lanagague doesn't consitute we have the same ideals and political culture.

Ofcourse not. Because we are in entirely different situations that have been led up to by differing events. Equating this difference in culture to learned experience is rediculous. There may be similarities between the phenomena but they are not the same.
Would you say that the diplomatic excersizes of the first American politicians were childish and infantile because american culture was as of yet not so tangible? If the "maturity" of Britain had carried over in the beginning then at what point in history does America's "infancy" begin?

Do you understand the issues with such an anology now?

 

[Anttech]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't aggree with you.. If culture doesn't come from the history of the land and people who lived in that land then where does it come from?

Would you say that the diplomatic excersizes of the first American politicians were childish and infantile because american culture was as of yet not so tangible? If the "maturity" of Britain had carried over in the beginning then at what point in history does America's "infancy" begin?

It seems to me that you were "offened" by my remark. I never said your politicians were childish.. I am saying that your Country has NO EXPERIENCE before ww1 of global politics...

 

[selfAdjoint]

It seems to me that you were "offened" by my remark. I never said your polititions were childish.. I am saying that your Country has NO EXPERIENCE before ww1 of global politics...

By "global politics" you apparently mean European politics. We were mixed up in the results of the French Revolution; the Louisiana purchase and the War of 1812 came out of that. After the Congress of Vienna Europe became pretty torpid except for the various democratic movements, which we supported from afar. We were heavily populated by the losers when these movements were crushed by the powers.

As for true global afairs, we participated in the Western relations with the Far East. Not something to be proud of there, but we did it.

I think that in the end, we had as much participation in the affairs of Europe as any other peaceable country, except maybe Britain.

 

[Anttech]

By "global politics" you apparently mean European politics.

Ermm no I mean global politics, and to be more concise: participating in Global politics where you actually had any say in what happened..

 

[Bystander]

I'd still disagree with Anntech's post. Culturally, our history isn't that different from Great Britain's (in fact they were the same until a couple hundred years ago). There's definitely a different outlook about world politics, but it probably has more to do with the difference between a country separated from every major threat to it by large oceans and the outlook of countries that have been very aware of their neighbors' proximity to them.

The US and UK have common links in our History, but
the culture between them is very different.

Given two hundred different definitions of the word "culture" in use by sociologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and political scientists, I'm certain you can find one to match the assertion that the two cultures are "very different." English law, private property, participatory government, argue against the assertion. Benny Hill vs. Robin Williams, left hand drive vs. right hand drive, fish and chips vs. burgers & fries, cricket vs. baseball, can be summed up as questionable tastes on the parts of both groups rather than cultural differences.

I think the main reason we approach world politics differently is because we did have an empire and you didnt (of sorts). We learned the hard way how to win hearts and minds, and play political games.

The Crimean War being a shining example of how well such lessons were learned and applied.

The US is a Mighty force in the world, but
your policies are very unsubtle, they don't need to be right now..

Subtlety is in the eye of the historian 50-100 years from now with the advantage of 20:20 hindsight and access to documentation that should be declassified by then, and, hopefully still recoverable from whatever media and formats in which it will have been archived.
(snip)

By "global politics" you apparently mean European politics.

Ermm no I mean global politics, and to be more concise: participating in Global politics where you actually had any say in what happened..

Could you give us an example or two? Are you suggesting that Anglo-French alliances and the ensuing disasters (Crimea, WW I, WW II, post-war reoccupation of SE Asia, '56 Sinai) are foreign policy triumphs for the U.S. to emulate?

 

[Skyhunter]

I think that in the end, we had as much participation in the affairs of Europe as any other peaceable country, except maybe Britain.

I would argue that historical experience is irrelevant. What is more important is how well informed and educated our policy makers are. Do they consult with experts and do they have an understanding of not only the past history but the current situation in the foreign nations that they are meddling in.

Unfortunately we have an incurious moron for a president who does not even want to hear a dissenting or alternative view. Our current foreign policy disaster is a result of his conceptual poverty.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I would argue that historical experience is irrelevant. What is more important is how well informed and educated our policy makers are. Do they consult with experts and do they have an understanding of not only the past history but the current situation in the foreign nations that they are meddling in.
Unfortunately we have an incurious moron for a president who does not even want to hear a dissenting or alternative view. Our current foreign policy disaster is a result of his conceptual poverty.

Alas, you are right. He isn't a moron, but he has learned from his life experiences that he doesn't need to think, he can hire that done. Unfortunately the folks he has hired are fanatics with a crazy program. Morons we can take, maniacs are another question.

 

[Skyhunter]

Alas, you are right. He isn't a moron, but he has learned from his life experiences that he doesn't need to think, he can hire that done. Unfortunately the folks he has hired are fanatics with a crazy program. Morons we can take, maniacs are another question.

I think that they chose him, not the other way around. The reason I think he is a moron is that he is unaware of how he is being used.

They had to deceive the American public to get support for their "program". Now that their deceit has been exposed the support is gone. The real tragedy as I see it is that it could have worked. If they had sent in enough troops and immediately stabilized the cities. If there had been an honest effort to get the basic infrastructure like electric, water and sewage working. If they had hired Iraqi's to do the work. So many mistakes were made because all they could see was the money they would make.

We saw with the New Orleans response, and the Meyers nomination, that when you put cronies in charge, when they need to actually perform their duty, they are found lacking. At least with Meyers his core supporters didn't trust her to overturn Roe -v- Wade, so we didn't have to suffer that one. But it is an example of how instead of finding the most qualified or even just finding well qualified people to fill positions, he picks those that he has a personal relationship with or as is the case with Brown, someone who raised money for him. if ever their was an argument for taking the money out of politics, "Brownie" is it.

I have never seen such rampant and blatant cronyism in government in my life. Not that I haven't seen it, just that usually the cronies have some experience in the position they are filling. Bush has had a free ride all his life, and is still getting off cheap IMO. Even with only 40% approval it is 40% to much.

I have never been a big fan of either party, but this new year I am going to work very hard at defeating every Republican and Democrat that has supported this administration. It appears that the Republican that was going to challenge Feinstein for Senate from California is going to drop out. That leaves a Green party candidate. I intend to support him and maybe get rid of another corporatist.

 

[Skyhunter]

Just to put the Iraqi elections and Bush's role in them into perspective, here is Juan Cole's Blog.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-in-2005-iraq.html

10. The Bush administration wanted free elections in Iraq. This allegation is simply not true, as I and others pointed out last January. I said then, and it is still true:


' Moreover, as Swopa rightly reminds us all, the Bush administration opposed one-person, one-vote elections of this sort. First they were going to turn Iraq over to Chalabi within six months. Then Bremer was going to be MacArthur in Baghdad for years. Then on November 15, 2003, Bremer announced a plan to have council-based elections in May of 2004. The US and the UK had somehow massaged into being provincial and municipal governing councils, the members of which were pro-American. Bremer was going to restrict the electorate to this small, elite group.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani immediately gave a fatwa denouncing this plan and demanding free elections mandated by a UN Security Council resolution. Bush was reportedly "extremely offended" at these two demands and opposed Sistani. Bremer got his appointed Interim Governing Council to go along in fighting Sistani. Sistani then brought thousands of protesters into the streets in January of 2004, demanding free elections. Soon thereafter, Bush caved and gave the ayatollah everything he demanded. Except that he was apparently afraid that open, non-manipulated elections in Iraq might become a factor in the US presidential campaign, so he got the elections postponed to January 2005. This enormous delay allowed the country to fall into much worse chaos, and Sistani is still bitter that the Americans didn't hold the elections last May. The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did. '

Bush opposed the elections. Maybe he is not such a moron after all. He is after all taking credit for them. But that is his dishonest opportunitic nature.

 

[SOS2008]

Just to put the Iraqi elections and Bush's role in them into perspective, here is Juan Cole's Blog.
http://www.juancole.com/2005/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-in-2005-iraq.html
Bush opposed the elections. Maybe he is not such a moron after all. He is after all taking credit for them. But that is his dishonest opportunitic nature.

Great information Skyhunter. Bush supporters may see him as a visionary, but the philosophies come from others with more intellect, for example:

The debate within the Bush administration

In the months following September 11th two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush Administration regarding the critical policy question of how to handle potentially dangerous countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ("Axis of Evil" states). Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as well as US Department of State specialists, argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing US foreign policy. These policies, developed during the long years of the Cold War, sought to establish a multi-lateral consensus for action (which would likely take the form of increasingly harsh sanctions against the problem states, summarized as the policy of containment). The opposing view, argued by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a number of influential Department of Defense policy makers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, held that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified and that America should embrace the opportunities for democracy and security offered by its position as sole remaining superpower.

President Bush ultimately sided with the Department of Defense camp (also described as the neoconservatives), and their recommendations form the basis for the Bush Doctrine.

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

Bush had always wanted to remove Saddam, but Cheney and others in the cabal do the actual work, and Rove packages it for American consumption (while Bush rides his bike, which is preferred by his staff who are tired of the temper tantrums). Bush embraced the neocon philosophy later in his administration. At the heart of it is:

Strength Beyond Challenge
The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.

By means of:

Preemption
A policy of pre-emptive war, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction.

The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US.

Unilateralism
The duty of the US to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multi-lateral solutions cannot be found.

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

Under the auspices of "Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions"

The original intent of the invasion has been to install a pro-American government that would allow permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. Democracy is the cover-up — if it happens it would be nice, but it is not the primary motivation.