The democratic revolution marches on...

[Elok]

These don't appear to be long-term changes so much as backing down for a moment because another country is spoiling for a fight. They work in the same way Vietnam "worked" to contain communism, by making the prospect of displeasing America unpalatable, not by discouraging the unpleasant behavior directly. Uh-oh, the Americans want to start a peeing contest, better lay low for a while.

The underlying cultures and attitudes that are the real problem don't change a bit. Note that Afghanistan has just "elected" its dominant warlord into its presidency...

[Dis]

Originally posted by PLATO


Not as much as all the lives saved and all the free people.

You know, some people believe that freeedom is worth dying for...I know our forefathers did.

as long as it's voluntary as I said in my first post.

Iraq did not volunteer to be a democracy.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor


And that's actually the right way to do things. I continue not to believe the whole "democracy at gunpoint" meme, and I expect Iraq to need continuous pressure and support so that its democracy becomes sustainable, just like the undemocratic institutions of the other ME countries will require pressure, while their democratic opposition will require support.

"Democracy at gunpoint"? Really now. So, are you implying that democracy would not be the choice of the Iraqi people? Perhaps you meant "Deposing tyrants at gunpoint"? That is, in fact, what happened. I can imagine what the vote would be if given a choice between their present government and having Sadaam back.

[chequita guevara]

I still think the eivdence is far stronger for a Syria-Iran connection to Lockerbie than an Lybian one (course that puts part of the blame on the U.S.). Lybia just got tired of sanctions and decided it cost less to cry "Uncle Sam!"

[Ramo]

The underlying cultures and attitudes that are the real problem don't change a bit. Note that Afghanistan has just "elected" its dominant warlord into its presidency...

Karzai wasn't a warlord. The problem with Afghanistan, as I said in the other thread, is that parliamentary/local elections keep getting pushed back. In fact, parliamentary elections were just delayed again. So it's basically a Presidential dictatorship.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
It has nothing to do with the US. More to do with access to mass media.

Besides, the western "democracies" aren't really, anymore.

[Elok]

Originally posted by PLATO
"Democracy at gunpoint"? Really now. So, are you implying that democracy would not be the choice of the Iraqi people? Perhaps you meant "Deposing tyrants at gunpoint"? That is, in fact, what happened. I can imagine what the vote would be if given a choice between their present government and having Sadaam back.

Can anyone say, "either-or fallacy?" The French didn't vote to put the King back on the throne after their Revolution; they just let a different tyrant named Bonaparte take over. And it's been a little over a decade since the Cold War "deposed" the USSR. Putin's a lot better than the commies, right?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, what's your bill of particulars for Yushenko?

1. Scandals during the inter-election. For example, plenty of cripples were disenfranchised (most of them coming from the mining regions of the East)

2. Used the mob in order to have his will imposed.

3. Corrupt hack. Has been in power before as prime minister, and made a bunch of money

4. Divider. He nominated Yulia Timochenko as interim prime minister. She is famous for having been the ring-leader of the Orange revolution, that deeply divided the country (it's not like all democratically-minded Ukraininas were orange: it was one half of Ukraine against another).

Both candidates in the elections were corrupt clowns. One was more symapthetic to Russia, the other was more sympathetic to the west. But being our ***** does not a democrat make.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
"Democracy at gunpoint"? Really now. So, are you implying that democracy would not be the choice of the Iraqi people? Perhaps you meant "Deposing tyrants at gunpoint"? That is, in fact, what happened. I can imagine what the vote would be if given a choice between their present government and having Sadaam back.

I am implying that the Iraqis will probably be very comfortable with a system of the tyranny of the majority, as long as they're in the majority. I'm also implying that the Iraqi institutions are very weak so far, and should there not be US pressure, it's very likely that some guy in power decides to keep it to himself.

Democracy requires a political culture where the power lies in institutions rather than individuals. This culture doesn't come in one day. It will require continuous pressure for some time (and continuous support of the democratic opposition -whatever it is) to have this idea being passed on.

If anything, the fate of most African "democracies" show that a young democracy requires constant attention to become sustainable.

[Elok]

If the Reagan presidency taught us only one thing, it's that subverting a foreign country's politics to make it more "America-friendly" by military force is just not as easy as it sounds. Bush's freedom just got "marching," it's too soon to tell how long all this is going to last (my bet's around five years, tops, before these countries revert to autocracy with a deeper grudge against the US), and the historical score is heavily weighted against it.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Spiffor

1. Scandals during the inter-election. For example, plenty of cripples were disenfranchised (most of them coming from the mining regions of the East)

2. Used the mob in order to have his will imposed.

3. Corrupt hack. Has been in power before as prime minister, and made a bunch of money

4. Divider. He nominated Yulia Timochenko as interim prime minister. She is famous for having been the ring-leader of the Orange revolution, that deeply divided the country (it's not like all democratically-minded Ukraininas were orange: it was one half of Ukraine against another).

Both candidates in the elections were corrupt clowns. One was more symapthetic to Russia, the other was more sympathetic to the west. But being our ***** does not a democrat make.

That's a whole lot of circular argumentation, Spiffor. He used the mob to force new, reasonably fair elections, and to replace fixed elections. The only thing you got on him is #3, about which I would need more info.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS


Iraq costs $150 billion per annum? That seems rather high. At a minimum, I ask you to show your figures.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0125-08.htm

We've been there two years with a cost of right around $300 billion not counting development aid or funds to pay for their recent elections since those aren't directly military projects. That figures out to be $150 billion per year that we have spent.

That means funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will total nearly $105 billion in fiscal 2005 alone - a record amount that shatters initial estimates of the cost.

That figure doesn't include Bush's "emergency spending" requests which is one of his favorite ways to disguise the true costs of his programs. He announces one price tag then waits a few months and asks for substantional extra money. He did this to the tune of $80 billion last year for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Q Classic]

Yep...Bush and his policies are idiotic.

Even if we grant that these foreign policy victories might be his, how does it wash away such travesties as Claria (Gator) employees becoming part of the Department of Homeland Security?

Yep, Bush and his policies are idiotic.

[DanS]

Subtract the money for Afghanistan and other items. Recalculate for 3 years, as these are appropriations and not actual spending yet.

I am somewhat surprised to see you cite Common Dreams.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I am implying that the Iraqis will probably be very comfortable with a system of the tyranny of the majority, as long as they're in the majority. I'm also implying that the Iraqi institutions are very weak so far, and should there not be US pressure, it's very likely that some guy in power decides to keep it to himself.

Democracy requires a political culture where the power lies in institutions rather than individuals. This culture doesn't come in one day. It will require continuous pressure for some time (and continuous support of the democratic opposition -whatever it is) to have this idea being passed on.

If anything, the fate of most African "democracies" show that a young democracy requires constant attention to become sustainable.

I agree with all that, but how is that "Democracy at gunpoint"? Are you saying that other kinds of pressure don't work? Perhaps that may be correct in the beginning...I just don't know. What I do know is that a chance for democracy is better than Sadaam for the vast majority of Iraqis. I would venture to guess that it is probably going to be better for a large number of the Sunnis.