Imposing Democracy (upon people)

J

jmpet

Valued Senior Member
Imposing Democracy (upon people)

A tradition that goes back to antiquity- the concept of conquering a people then civilizing them to become a collaborator to the empire. Most notably the Romans, who conquered then built roads, aqueducts etc... and most recently Iraq, to whom America conquered then installed a new Democracy.

Is this the way history unfolds? Is this how mankind has evolved as a society? Is this the model? Maybe so.
 
Totally bassackwards.

You state it as if the Iraqi people WANTED Saddam's dictatorial rule, that the majority Shiites enjoyed being persecuted by the minority Bathists.

We didn't IMPOSE democracy on them.

We gave them the opportunity to elect their own leaders and write their own constitution and thus they instituted a system of government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/iraqi_constitution.pdf

Arthur
 
History is replete with people forcing their own ideals upon those who have something the oppressors want.

It has nothing to do with "democracy".

Why do people insist on scratching the surface of things?
 
jmpet said:
Imposing Democracy (upon people)

A tradition that goes back to antiquity- the concept of conquering a people then civilizing them to become a collaborator to the empire. Most notably the Romans, who conquered then built roads, aqueducts etc... and most recently Iraq, to whom America conquered then installed a new Democracy.

Is this the way history unfolds? Is this how mankind has evolved as a society? Is this the model? Maybe so.
Click to expand...

Funny isn't it that the people that the Romans conqured got along fine without roads and aqueducts for hundreds of years and were at peace with the world until the Romans thougt they wanted to make slaves of everyone else and make the conqured do their dirty work.
 
If it was a war of conquest, why do the Iraqis have their own Government, Constitution, Army, Police and Judiciary?
 
adoucette said:
If it was a war of conquest, why do the Iraqis have their own Government, Constitution, Army, Police and Judiciary?
Click to expand...

a government we attempted to decided for them, army that we armed, police that we replaced, and judiciary we ignore. Sounds like conquest to me.
 
We didn't write their constitution, the Iraqis did.
The Iraqi people voted for their representatives and their president, several times now.
Yes we armed their army, but so what? The Iraqi army is under the control of the Iraqi government and now vastly outnumbers us.
Yes, we replaced Saddam's police force but the new Iraqi police force is made up of Iraqis who are part of the Iraqi government and also vastly outnumbers us.
The recent lifting of the final UN sanctions/restrictions now allows the Iraqis to re-enter the world stage as a fully independent country once again.

Clearly there was no conquest as the Iraqi people are in charge of their country and at this point we are basically a training and security force and will be gone within probably another two years.

Arthur
 
I'm sure it was photoshopped, but a couple of years ago I saw a picture of a U.S. Army tank, with a bumper sticker reading:

"Be nice to us! Or else we'll bring freedom and democracy to YOUR country next!"
 
adoucette said:
Totally bassackwards.

You state it as if the Iraqi people WANTED Saddam's dictatorial rule, that the majority Shiites enjoyed being persecuted by the minority Bathists.

We didn't IMPOSE democracy on them.

We gave them the opportunity to elect their own leaders and write their own constitution and thus they instituted a system of government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Click to expand...

We are setting up satellite democracies. Are you that blind? This isn't even a secret- it's common knowledge- and we have been doing it for over 50 years! Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan- and let's not forget all the black op missions in South America to ensure leaders friendly to America rule these nations. Were you asleep during the 40 year Cold War?
 
Whether they wanted democracy or not, I think it should probably have been up to them to overthrow their own government...on their own. I'm sure some would think me cruel to say so, but I am not terribly interested in us Americans continuing to stick our noses in other people's business--for their own good or not. Some of the worst crimes are committed 'for the victim's sake'. Since when is it the job of the US to liberate the world? How the hell do we think we have the ability to show others how to be free when we give up our freedoms daily...and willingly...'for our own safety'? We're a bunch of well-meaning frauds...
 
mugwump said:
Whether they wanted democracy or not, I think it should probably have been up to them to overthrow their own government...on their own. I'm sure some would think me cruel to say so, but I am not terribly interested in us Americans continuing to stick our noses in other people's business--for their own good or not. Some of the worst crimes are committed 'for the victim's sake'. Since when is it the job of the US to liberate the world? How the hell do we think we have the ability to show others how to be free when we give up our freedoms daily...and willingly...'for our own safety'? We're a bunch of well-meaning frauds...
Click to expand...

The problem is that other countries are doing that and have been doing that. If America doesn't help out other countries then those countries will all fall to a dictator or communist form of government whereby everything bought and sold there will only be from other countries that have the same types of governments. America would probably be alone with no others to deal with and that wouldn't be a very good things would it? :shrug:
 
cosmictraveler said:
Funny isn't it that the people that the Romans conqured got along fine without roads and aqueducts for hundreds of years and were at peace with the world until the Romans thougt they wanted to make slaves of everyone else and make the conqured do their dirty work.
Click to expand...
A lot of those conquered people wanted to trade in the Empire and would have happily conquered their own chunk of it ... IF they could.

As for Iraq I think the main argument for conquering Iraq was resources. IMO this will happen more IF the US economy tanks. US Citizens will want repaid on their investment... if that makes sense.
 
mugwump said:
Whether they wanted democracy or not, I think it should probably have been up to them to overthrow their own government...on their own. ...
Click to expand...

Apparently you're the kind of coward that won't stand up to the Bully on the playground when he is kicking the shit out of some little kid because you are afraid of getting a bloody nose.

Nice.

Arthur
 
A question.
After the Second World War, which was the fate of countries liberated by the USSR and which was the fate of countries liberated by the U.S.?
I know from the elders who have waited the americans decades and they were convinced the americans will not leave us to the russians.(unfortunately in vain :( )
 
adoucette said:
Apparently you're the kind of coward that won't stand up to the Bully on the playground when he is kicking the shit out of some little kid because you are afraid of getting a bloody nose.

Nice.

Arthur
Click to expand...

I appreciate the fact that there are members present who have no qualms about making negative assumptions and launching personal attacks in response to political discussions. Thank you.

My point was based on the idea that it is possible that there was no such bully and no little kid. Or that, if there was, the United States might more likely be viewed as impertinent and intrusive than otherwise by the citizens of that now 'peacefully occupied' country.

There is power in numbers. The people hold freedom in their own hands but do not recognize it, which is why they do not use it. A country whose people did not 'own' their own freedom and take it from the dictator's hand themselves...these are the people who will never truly value that liberty and will never fully believe they ever had the power to change things without some other benevolent country coming to their rescue. They will always feel weak deep down. They will always doubt.
 
mugwump said:
A country whose people did not 'own' their own freedom and take it from the dictator's hand themselves...these are the people who will never truly value that liberty and will never fully believe they ever had the power to change things without some other benevolent country coming to their rescue. They will always feel weak deep down. They will always doubt.
Click to expand...

Oh grow up.

You did nothing to OWN your own freedom.

Real easy for you to mouth these platitudes from the safety and comfort of your living room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm64E5R12s8

Would you think the same thing if it was YOUR name called out by Saddam?

Arthur
 
You did nothing to OWN your own freedom.
Click to expand...

The accuracy of your statement would be dependent upon which freedom of mine I did or did not own.

Real easy for you to mouth these platitudes from the safety and comfort of your living room.
Click to expand...

My current location has no bearing whatsoever on my experiences, of which you are ignorant, now does it?

Would you think the same thing if it was YOUR name called out by Saddam?
Click to expand...

Considering that I would most likely have to be in the situation to be sure, it is difficult to be certain. I don't suppose any answer would satisfy you, however. Either way, I'm damned, so I shan't even bother.

I'm not here to pick fights, nor am I interested in childish mind games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top