News USA's Moral Obligation to Spread Democracy: Thoughts?

[vanesch]

Supposedly the reason we are in Iraq is that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction

he didn't have any, did he ?

and refuse to give the UN inspectors unlimited search rights even after being repeatedly warned and give a year by the UN to comply fully. We, the US are not the only nation there which everyone including the Democrats in this country seems to ignore.

Then why didn't you let the UN decide ?

This is the typical defense of the pro-Iraq war:
- We were attacked, look at 9/11
- That was Al Quaida, not Iraq
- He helped Al Quaida
- They were ennemies
- He had weapons of mass destruction
- He hadn't
- He wasn't complying to the UN rules
- The UN didn't order the invasion
- He's a terrorist, he supports the Palestinians
- All Arabs do
- He was a bad guy, anyway, the world is better off without him
- Depends on what you have in place
- Hey, we are helping the Iraqi people !
...

Saddam also was reported to support world wide terrorism materially and economically not just giving aid to the Palestinian terrorist.

Ah, the real reasons are coming up. You do this for Israel !
But then my previous remark holds: the Palestinian terrorists (or resistance fighters, depends on your point of view) get much more money from Saoudi Arabia and the Gulf states. These are very nasty regimes too.

We are at war against terrorism period wherever and whoever it may be.

Also state terrorism ? Then do something about Israel !

I cannot see wany so called civilized and humanitarian person or country could object to our invasion of Iraq to do away with Saddam and his horrific regime

Ah, we're getting reasonable. I agree with you that it is a good thing to have a nice, peaceful democracy in the place of Saddam, if that's all that's there is to it, and the costs in lives and so on is not high. I don't agree that it is a good thing to have an Islamic republic in the place of Saddam. I don't agree that it is a good thing to have general anarchy in place of Saddam. And in any case, it is not up to one nation or a few nations to decide, it is up to the UN ! That was my whole point. Even if this operation finally turns well (which I doubt) the price to pay is the end of a world consensus for such interventions.

 

[Gonzolo]

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement? I personally think that the USA does have an obligation to spread Democratic ideals to other nations, but I can't really think of a single concrete reason we do, besides it's just the right thing to do in general.

Well no, I don't think any country has any moral obligation in interfering in other countries' affairs. This seems like an invitation to conflict, since a group such as Al queada might just as well say the same, that it has a moral obligation to spread its own agenda. Or sticking to countries, perhaps Britain, which is similar to the US in many respects, but not identical. Eventually, a dispute could arise if Britain and the US each decided they had to spread their respective specific ideals (republic vs paliamentary monarchy).

Even though US citizens may feel they have the best system, most productive, most innovative etc. these are not necessarily the most important values for other societies. An Okinawan might not give a hoot about the American system, because he has the greatest lifespan and that may be what's most important to him, nevermind owning a ranch, a mansion and an SUV, or even freedom of press. The same goes for other populations.

The thing is some people don't want the American way of life and they're happy that way. They just don't want to be bothered by strangers. Non-Americans don't spend their lives in pain and misery hoping for the US to one day rescue them. Most are just fine the way they are.

The US needn't worry about spreading democratic values alone. If it wants to help in this respect, it only has to support the UN, that is if the UN votes to reform a country, then that is much more democratic than the US going at it irrespective of what its closest friends have to say. It'll get much more respect and approval.

 

[jai6638]

Well no, I don't think any country has any moral obligation in interfering in other countries' affairs. This seems like an invitation to conflict, since a group such as Al queada might just as well say the same, that it has a moral obligation to spread its own agenda. Or sticking to countries, perhaps Britain, which is similar to the US in many respects, but not identical. Eventually, a dispute could arise if Britain and the US each decided they had to spread their respective specific ideals (republic vs paliamentary monarchy).

Even though US citizens may feel they have the best system, most productive, most innovative etc. these are not necessarily the most important values for other societies. An Okinawan might not give a hoot about the American system, because he has the greatest lifespan and that may be what's most important to him, nevermind owning a ranch, a mansion and an SUV, or even freedom of press. The same goes for other populations.

The thing is some people don't want the American way of life and they're happy that way. They just don't want to be bothered by strangers. Non-Americans don't spend their lives in pain and misery hoping for the US to one day rescue them. Most are just fine the way they are.

The US needn't worry about spreading democratic values alone. If it wants to help in this respect, it only has to support the UN, that is if the UN votes to reform a country, then that is much more democratic than the US going at it irrespective of what its closest friends have to say. It'll get much more respect and approval.

i agree. It should try and support UN and follow UN instead of doing what it pleases. It shoudnt do anything without the support of UN ( as it did when it invaded Iraq ) else it would be hypocracy because If US doesn't want to listen to / wait for UN's permission then i don't see why would the other countries want to do so?

In my opinion, all these events ( US not waiting for the UN's decision on invading iraq,etc) will lead to the collapse of UN eventually just like what happened to the league of nations when US decided to back out...

Originally Posted by Royce

We were attacked and 2024 noncombatant men and women killed in an unprovoked terrorist attack supported and funded in part by Iraq. We are at war!

Iraq had nothing to do with it... There were better ways of reacting to such an attack rather than just declaring an open war against countries such as Iraq which had nothing to do with it.. When the attack happened, US had the sympathy of the world ( including most of the arabs ) but by Bush's actions he's just made the world ( especially the arabs ) go against US...
He lacks diplomacy and his lack of diplomacy spoilt it all... US wasnt at war... Bush has gotten US into a senseless war as he isn't targeting places and concentrating on things that should be dealt with first such as trying to Disarm North Korea ( even though its near impossible )...

He made a mess in iraq and has killed more Iraqis than saddam ever killed in his 20 year rule..

 

[Smurf]

The US isn't even very good at it apparently
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6577

I suppose it's to be expected.

 

[vanesch]

In my opinion, all these events ( US not waiting for the UN's decision on invading iraq,etc) will lead to the collapse of UN eventually just like what happened to the league of nations when US decided to back out...

This is indeed the main reason I'm so pissed at the US for having invaded Iraq: it is the end of a more civilised world view, based upon an international organisation that decides about when to wage war. Now I perfectly agree that the UN was far from a perfect organisation (for instance, there's no reason there should be 5 exceptional nations with veto right), but at least, the idea was there that waging war is such a nasty thing to do, that it should only be done within an international framework, with large consensus, when nothing else seems to work out. In one strike, the US:
- has done away with the lessons learned from WWII
- has given legitimity to Al Qaida and other organisations/nations to use violence in order to establish their agenda
- has promoted religious fanaticism
- killed off international law

but it is true that they removed a nasty dictator.

If you make up the balance, it swings heavily out to the bad side, I'd say.

 

[Smurf]

-Promoted Militaristic Behavior in Any states not heavily influenced by US Corporations
-Promoted Nuclear Weapon Development
-Encouraged Me Too-ism by Totaltarian Governments

(for those of you just coming in, its because they know it'll make them safe from the US since the US only invades weaker nations already distraught by International Sanctions)

but it is true they got rid of a minor dictator

 

[jai6638]

but it is true that they removed a nasty dictator.

.

who didnt do as much damage to his citizens as US did ... :p

 

[vanesch]

who didnt do as much damage to his citizens as US did ... :p

Well, that's maybe not entirely true... yet. He wasn't a particularly nice guy either.

I don't want to be US-bashing here (although I don't mind Bush bashing ) ; I'm sure that if I think hard, I can find nice things to say about the US ; although the US hasn't a perfect (or even the best) political system in the world, there sure is worse.
But I'm just particularly sad that they committed this historical mistake and they don't seem to realize it.

 

[Gonzolo]

But I'm just particularly sad that they committed this historical mistake and they don't seem to realize it.

There is the possibility that it is not a mistake.

 

[Burnsys]

Is there anyone from South America (especially Agentina, whose economy collapsed a few years ago) or Africa who would like to comment on this? I think you'll find that while there are people in every country who are interested in making money, many people don't want to become Americanised. Don't take it as such a big insult that not every country wants to be a clone of the US, its mainly that The People would rather have a choice in the matter. By the way, what you call 'globalisation' is often known outside the US as 'Americanisation', and is often a pejorative with connotations of being coerced into a way of life that is unwanted. Don't you think its possible that some people don't want TV, cars, adverts, computers, dog-eat-dog, long working hours etc as major factors in their lives? And to get back to the point of this thread, maybe they are happy without democracy. When you think about it, how many people in the US actually voted this week, and it was a relatively large turnout? Hardly a ringing endorsement for how eager many in the US are about democracy. Maybe if you had PR...?

Hi. i am from argentina...
Our history was always shaped by America interventionism.. in the 70' an us backed military dictatorship overtrown OUR DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED goverment... 30.000 "Comunist" killed tortured and disapeared by the military. This military dictatorship started a process called neoliberalism.. a set of economic policies comming from america, our external debt duplicated, international banks were given rigths to transfer all the money the wanted outside the country. and international corporations were welcome...

In the 90' with president carlos menem, who was very obedient to USA, the imf, and the bid.. in the 90' acording to the imf we was the example to follow to all south america.. after his period we have this crisis... in year 2000, we have a masive withdrawl of money from the country, most of it, electronicaly transferred to usa by the banks... our economic minister,, Domingo Cavallo (Member of the trilateral comision) decided to froze and confiscate all people savings in the banks... yes. the international banks (Citibank , bbva, HSBC, ETC.) robed all our savings.. simple as that...

 

[jai6638]

There is the possibility that it is not a mistake.

well its clearly a mistake... the world sees it as a mistake but a good number of US citizens refuse to agree... call me immature but majority wins imo... it is evident that its a mistake that has made the world even more unsafe..

But if you want to say that for the sake of debating then sure..

 

[Smurf]

I don't think it is a mistake. I think whoever's responsible (Exxon comes to mind) had a reason, what is that reason?
When America gains control of Iraqi oil they will gain huge influence on the global price of oil.

Now for a Quote
"I've visited a lot of countries, I've lived in many places around the world, and believe me there arn't many places with as many lonely, alienated, paranoid, narcissistic, frightened and trapped people as the US. So why are US citizens so proud of their country? Because they deny being its victim."
-Adbuster Magazine

 

[vanesch]

I don't think it is a mistake. I think whoever's responsible (Exxon comes to mind) had a reason, what is that reason?
When America gains control of Iraqi oil they will gain huge influence on the global price of oil.

Although the political aim to gain more influence in the ME is clearly economy-driven (especially when the top politicians all come out of the oil business), I still have the impression that if that was the main aim, then it failed miserably. It would have been the case if the Iraqis had welcomed their "liberators", but that didn't happen and I don't see it happen in the years to come. I even think that the US lost a lot of influence in the ME.
Do you think that, say, 5 years from now a) the US military will be gone from Iraq and b) that whatever government that will be there will be US-minded ? I think they blew it in the ME.

But I have the naive impression that all these more subtle reasons are secondary to the Iraqi invasion. I simply have the impression that there are a few people in the Bush administration who simply had some personal feelings against Saddam and that now that they are in power, didn't want to miss the occasion of beating him up. Shear testosterone activity.
All what is said after that is only there to rationalise that impulsive behaviour.

 

[Smurf]

Of cource vanesch, Saddam's very existence threatened America's hold on other weaker nations, now that his attempt to be independant from the US (weather he did it intentionally or if it was an accident, i can't say) has been crushed the US may get more obediance from its current lackies.

But I wouldn't be too sure that America will not gain main access to iraq's oil reserves, they could do a number of things from accually setting up a strong government (unlikely) to supporting a warlord to take over iraq like they supported saddam, this time keep him on a shorter leash.

 

[Canute]

It's my impression that a truly representative system, such as Parliamentarism, would not fit well with the American mind. I may be speaking out of ignorance, but Americans seem very enamored of heroes and superheroes. They like to see one man, one individual, fight a personal battle for the common good. It's part of their culture, from the early days of the pilgrims who had to face a hostile environment without much help, and prospered doing it.

Which is probably the reason most foreigners don't understand how an uneducated and ignorant man like Bush can be elected President. Most foreigners can't relate to his facial expressions and verbal utterances of defiance against what he perceives as evil. Many Americans, it seems to me, see a lot of heroism in it.

(this is in no way a criticism of anything, just a passive observation)

That's a very good point indeed. I'd never thought of it. Bush appears to be an inexplicable choice of President to us non-Americans, but your explanation makes some sense of it. (God help us all, this means it'll be Arnie next). I wonder if US voters realize what a dreadful message it sends to rest of the world that after Bush's stupifyingly ignorant reaction to 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq he gets re-elected. We're talking about impeaching Blair over here, not of re-electing him. Still, we all seem to be in the same boat, ending up with inadequate leaders. Perhaps our idea of democracy needs updating now that industry has taken over politics.

 

[Gonzolo]

well its clearly a mistake... the world sees it as a mistake but a good number of US citizens refuse to agree... call me immature but majority wins imo... it is evident that its a mistake that has made the world even more unsafe..

But if you want to say that for the sake of debating then sure..

Well, I would say it depends on how well the rest of the world can organize itself in polarizing the US. For as long as the US remains stronger than any other entity or coalition, I wouldn't call it a mistake. A bit like a politician with 35% of the votes, 65% support someone else, but if it's all divided in different parties, the end result is that the 35% is the majority.

 

[vanesch]

Perhaps our idea of democracy needs updating now that industry has taken over politics.

An idea: how about "swap-democracy" ?

During the first round, the people of a nation elect a friendly other nation as their "great elector nation". Nations can apply or not. The winner cannot apply next time. The winning nation then organises an election amongst ITS population, in order to elect a candidate from the original country as its president.

So, say, there are swap elections in the US. First round: Canada, Spain and France apply as 'friendly nations'. Spain wins (closely followed by Canada).
Second round: the Americans propose their candidates (say, Bush, Kerry, ...).
The people of Spain elect the president of the US.

This system retains most of the advantages of a democracy (in that you can kick out a merciless, bad leader), and avoids much more all elective corruption and influence from pressure groups. You just get a candidate a friendly nation thinks is good for you.

 

[kawikdx225]

An idea: how about "swap-democracy" ?

During the first round, the people of a nation elect a friendly other nation as their "great elector nation". Nations can apply or not. The winner cannot apply next time. The winning nation then organises an election amongst ITS population, in order to elect a candidate from the original country as its president.

So, say, there are swap elections in the US. First round: Canada, Spain and France apply as 'friendly nations'. Spain wins (closely followed by Canada).
Second round: the Americans propose their candidates (say, Bush, Kerry, ...).
The people of Spain elect the president of the US.

This system retains most of the advantages of a democracy (in that you can kick out a merciless, bad leader), and avoids much more all elective corruption and influence from pressure groups. You just get a candidate a friendly nation thinks is good for you.

I was going to reply until I realized you were joking.

 

[vanesch]

I was going to reply until I realized you were joking.

JOKING ?? ME ??

 

[the number 42]

Hi. i am from argentina...
Our history was always shaped by America interventionism.. in the 70' an us backed military dictatorship overtrown OUR DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED goverment... 30.000 "Comunist" killed tortured and disapeared by the military. This military dictatorship started a process called neoliberalism.. a set of economic policies comming from america, our external debt duplicated, international banks were given rigths to transfer all the money the wanted outside the country. and international corporations were welcome...

In the 90' with president carlos menem, who was very obedient to USA, the imf, and the bid.. in the 90' acording to the imf we was the example to follow to all south america.. after his period we have this crisis... in year 2000, we have a masive withdrawl of money from the country, most of it, electronicaly transferred to usa by the banks... our economic minister,, Domingo Cavallo (Member of the trilateral comision) decided to froze and confiscate all people savings in the banks... yes. the international banks (Citibank , bbva, HSBC, ETC.) robed all our savings.. simple as that...

Thanks for giving us your first-hand experience of this, Burnsys. Sadly, I bet that many intelligent Americans will read your post and totally discount it, as it doesn't fit in with their preconception of how the US deals with other nations. Its a
'US = Good. Critics of US policy = bad' mentality. Anything that doesn't fit into this world view is distorted, if it registers at all.

One of my favourite films is Easy Rider. I like what they said about being feared by ordinary people not because they were on motorbikes and had long hair, but because their freedom showed up the ordinary folks' 'freedom' (tied to conservative views, corporations etc) as a sham.

Hope things are getting better over there now.

 

[Smurf]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[the number 42]

Are you saying that Dennis Hopper was terribly wasted at the time? I think you're right, and I don't think he was acting

I didn't think of it before, but the conversation they had was a bit like the Adbuster quote:

"I've visited a lot of countries, I've lived in many places around the world, and believe me there arn't many places with as many lonely, alienated, paranoid, narcissistic, frightened and trapped people as the US. So why are US citizens so proud of their country? Because they deny being its victim." -Adbuster Magazine

Of course Captain America and Billy the Kid (and Jack Nicholson) were the ultimate victims, but victims of people lashing out because the felt threatened.

 

[Brent_Justin]

The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.


In order not to confuse the republican constitution with the democratic (as is commonly done), the following should be noted. The forms of a state (civitas) can be divided either according to the persons who possesses the sovereign power or according to the mode of administration exercised over the people by the chief, whoever he may be. The first is properly called the form of sovereignty (forma imperii), and there are only three possible forms of it: autocracy, in which one, aristocracy, in which some associated together, or democracy, in which all those who constitute society, possesses sovereign power. They may be characterized, respectively, as the power of a monarch, of the nobility, or of the people. The second division is that by the form of government (forma regiminis) and is based on the way in which the state makes use of its power; this way is based on the constitution, which is the act of the general will through which the many persons become one nation. In this respect government is either republican or despotic. Republicanism is the political principle of the separation of the executive power (the administration) from the legislative; despotism is that of the autonomous execution by the state of laws which it has itself decreed. Thus in a despotism the public will is administered by the ruler as his own will. Of the three forms of the state, that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which "all" decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, "all," who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.

Immanuel Kant 'Perpetual Peace',

The United States also according to the world fact book is a Constitution-Federal Based Republic, WITH strong democratic traditions.

Im basing my affirmative allot to do with this, however I've researched 5 other books, and found that it is highly difficult to run this, the negative has many chances to argue the United States as a democracy or Republic.

The proper Value and Criterion will make a huge difference and how you define moral, not abusive, and promote, again not abusive, the democratic ideals can be defined as thos who are ignorant and define it as just plain democracy, or you can go deeper within that, PLZ I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE SAPPY CX CASES stfu with this wmd, nuclear wars, if your arguing war use war in general don't say the world is going to blow up if we don't use democracy. and if your negative don't take all the chances to be abusive.

This quote is allot like I am "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead"

 

[Polly]

Mr. Justin,
I appreciate your kind intention for the well being of the rest of the world that has not had the good fortune of enjoying American Democracy. But I have to urge you NOT to impose it on any of us because I find that arrogant and insufferable. Have a good life in whatever province you are in and try not to come out bothering us.

 

[Smurf]

Once again, just because Americans think their Democracy is better than someone else's government, does not mean that they should go over there and make it democratic.
The problem with Media today is it's brainwashing people into thinking their opinions are fact and so they people begin to think like that.

 

[Burnsys]

If USA invade my country and try to bring their supposed "Democracy" i will be one more "terrorist".. COuse i know usa GOV don't wan't democracy they want puppets goverments so their friendly corporations and banks can make profits with our resources and labor force... That is call imperialism...

 

[Polly]

Americans do not seem to realize how much disdain the rest of the world have of it. This is extrapolation of course, but most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.

 

[Aquamarine]

Americans do not seem to realize how much disdain the rest of the world have of it. This is extrapolation of course, but most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.

Yes, the Chinese government has gone to great length to replace communism with nationalism. And seems to have succeeded partly. Here are some information about human rights in China. Since you are from Honk Kong, you may be fortunate enough to be able to read it without censorship.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/countryratings/china.htm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-chn/index
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=china

 

[Polly]

Let me begin by saying I am as detached from the PRC government and as politically indifferent as the next Hong Kong person. So do not mistake me for a Chinese patriotic. I have remarked thus far as an earthling, as a human being who is outraged by the senseless killing your government has been fond of doing in different parts of the world. Turning back to your post, if you fail to see how the HR and Taiwanese issues are repeatly used to leverage the best bargaining position by your government, I have nothing to say.

 

[russ_watters]

...most of PRC men I know, when confronted with a simple choice between "Americans - friends or foes" will choose the latter, and they are those who have received higher education from the western world. Deep inside their heart the USA is just another hegemony.

That's the anthropoic principle at work: you won't meet many American-educated Chinese who like America because if they liked America, they likely would have stayed.

And getting an opinion on America from a Chinese student in France or England is as useless as getting an opinion of chocolate iced cream by eating vanilla.