No WMD!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon

If they called it "spreading democracy" or some new coined term for that concept, most of the world would join with America, and not oppose it.

Spreading manure is more like it.

Spreading civilization is more like it.

But you are right that Bush and the Neo-Cons have long been arguing that spreading democracy is what our foreign policy is about. The Iraq war had its pretexts. But the larger goal is the spread of freedom and democracy worldwide.

[Agathon]

It's because of such utterly stupid comments, that it is very difficult to take anything you state seriously.

As if I care what you think. If you believe their crap, you're as daft as they are.

These are the fools who thought that the Iraqi people would be lining the streets to cheer for them, and who planned a triumphant visit to Baghdad for Shrub during the handover that had to be cancelled because of the insurgency.

It's not like this wasn't apparent before the whole thing started. But hey, it's not like these guys ever bothered listening to anyone.

But you are right that Bush and the Neo-Cons have long been arguing that spreading democracy is what our foreign policy is about. The Iraq war had its pretexts. But the larger goal is the spread of freedom and democracy worldwide.

Even if they believe this, it's still insane. Democracy doesn't arise at the barrel of a gun, except under certain rare circumstances.

Besides, anyone that imputes selflessness to foreign policy is usually being naive.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon

But you are right that Bush and the Neo-Cons have long been arguing that spreading democracy is what our foreign policy is about. The Iraq war had its pretexts. But the larger goal is the spread of freedom and democracy worldwide.

Even if they believe this, it's still insane. Democracy doesn't arise at the barrel of a gun, except under certain rare circumstances.

Besides, anyone that imputes selflessness to foreign policy is usually being naive.

One does not impose democracy with a gun. This is what commies do when they impose communism.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a man is holding a gun on a helpless woman and is forcing her into a sex act. Along comes a policeman. He arrests the man and frees the woman. She marries the cop and has consensual sex with him.

Now, which if the two is more like communism and which is more like democracy? Next, is arresting the man imposing marriage on the woman?

[Agathon]

One does not impose democracy with a gun. This is what commies do when they impose communism.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a man is holding a gun on a helpless woman and is forcing her into a sex act. Along comes a policeman. He arrests the man and frees the woman. She marries the cop and has consensual sex with him.

Now, which if the two is more like communism and which is more like democracy? Next, is arresting the man imposing marriage on the woman?

WTH does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[Ned]

Agathon, you contended that American's policy was to impose democracy with a gun, by force. I gave you the analogy only to show you just how ludicrous your statement was. One does not impose democracy. One ends tryanny.

[Ted Striker]

What if the arresting man is actually one of those strippers dressed as cops???

[Agathon]

Agathon, you contended that American's policy was to impose democracy with a gun, by force.

I claimed that the stated purpose of the policy was to impose "democracy" (or a particular version of it). That doesn't mean I believe that the actual reasons for the policy aren't more mundane, although it is possible that they really do believe in what they are doing.

My claim is that even if their aims are solely noble, they are simply silly. Democracy is hard to impose by force on people, and the United States is the wrong country to do it. It is simply not viewed as legitimate, and it lacks the staying power to do more than a half assed job.

More to the point, Bush's little adventures and policy statements are ****ing up the prospects for an international order based on law, rather than force. I don't care what people say: there is no realistic alternative to the UN or some UN like agency. Certainly, the US trying to bully its rivals will just lead to the formation of counter blocs and a return to the state of nature.

One does not impose democracy. One ends tryanny.

And how many times has this been said by those imposing a new tyranny?

Your analogy doesn't work – in this case the woman would be being saved by a man who'd stood by watching as she was raped the first time and cheered on the rapist - and then had a go himself.

[Ned]

Ted, you got a point. This is how Stalin took over Eastern Europe in the name of liberation. Bait and switch.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Agathon

It's because of such utterly stupid comments, that it is very difficult to take anything you state seriously.

As if I care what you think. If you believe their crap, you're as daft as they are.

Nice and intelligent argumentation - smear the person instead arguing aginst his/her opinion.

These are the fools who thought that the Iraqi people would be lining the streets to cheer for them, and who planned a triumphant visit to Baghdad for Shrub during the handover that had to be cancelled because of the insurgency.

It's not like this wasn't apparent before the whole thing started. But hey, it's not like these guys ever bothered listening to anyone.

Actually, there was a lot of cheering in the streets when people got aware of the fact that the regime had fallen, and since when has it been stupid to plan for the best outcome and then change plans when nessecary ?

Who says that they didn't listen ? Oh, the fact that they didn't act upon it. I guess that they have to listen to a lot, but if they should react to all of it, it would be plain chaos.

But you are right that Bush and the Neo-Cons have long been arguing that spreading democracy is what our foreign policy is about. The Iraq war had its pretexts. But the larger goal is the spread of freedom and democracy worldwide.

Even if they believe this, it's still insane. Democracy doesn't arise at the barrel of a gun, except under certain rare circumstances.

Besides, anyone that imputes selflessness to foreign policy is usually being naive.

Such as removing a dictator that never would allow democracy ? And especially one who had two sons that was even worse ?

Why should it be selflessness to create democracy ? Quite contrary, I'll call it selfinterest to make more countries democratic.

[Ned]

Agathon, I think the elections in January in Iraq proves the lie to your statement that people, once freed from tyranny, do not want democracy. This has always been the lie promulgated by the left precisely to twart America's effort to spread democracy and oppose communism. This was the very same argument made by the likes of Jane Fondal that we could not "impose" democracy on South Vietnam, as they are brown, uncivilized people incapable of political freedom.

[Ned]

As to your point on the UN, one of its stated goals is to spread freedom and democracy around the world. The problem is, we immediately subverted that goal when we allowed the USSR both membership and a veto. What in the world were we thinking when we did that?

[Agathon]

Agathon, I think the elections in January in Iraq proves the lie to your statement that people, once freed from tyranny, do not want democracy.

It was a farce. The Shias voted because they were told to. The Kurds voted because they want out.

The election was a joke and the government would not last 2 years if the US left right now.

This has always been the lie promulgated by the left precisely to twart America's effort to spread democracy and oppose communism.

In this case it was more to thwart obvious idiocy.

This was the very same argument made by the likes of Jane Fondal that we could not "impose" democracy on South Vietnam, as they are brown, uncivilized people incapable of political freedom.

People are quite capable of sorting it out for themselves. Democracy is not a peculiarly American idea, nor does it require American intervention to foster it (in fact Vietnam showed how counterproductive that can be).

As to your point on the UN, one of its stated goals is to spread freedom and democracy around the world. The problem is, we immediately subverted that goal when we allowed the USSR both membership and a veto. What in the world were we thinking when we did that?

You don't understand the UN at all.

It was essential to let the Soviet Union have a vote. The purpose of the UN is to stop war and replace the rule of force with the rule of law. Of course you can't impose this on the great powers: hence they get a veto. The hope is that eventually the great powers will realize that the rule of law is in their interest and give it up. That hasn't happened yet, but there is no realistic alternative.

If you think a US hegemony is a realistic alternative, I've news for you. Most other countries will not see it as legitimate and will seek allies to protect themselves from it, and the US itself is not fit for the role – it cannot afford the military expenses required while placating American voters.

It just can't – this was the lesson of Vietnam.

And denying the USSR entry would have made the UN into exactly the sort of alliance that caused the wars the UN was designed to prevent. A similar argument applies to those who want the US kicked out of the UN. The UN has been moderately successful – almost no-one now believes that aggressive wars are legitimate, and nobody believes that conquered territory can be legitimately annexed. People didn't used to think this way.

[Ned]

No doubt that one of the reasons for the UN was to prevent future wars on the theory that the WWII allies would cooperate together in the future as they did against Germany and Japan. But, any realist even at the time would know that the USSR was only an ally of necessity and would itself been an object of war if Germany had not been first. There was a real screw loose in the thinking of the UN founders at the time.

BTW, I wonder what Churchill had to say about including the USSR in the new UN?

[Ned]

Even today I would like to see a new UN, or a rule change, that would limit active status to members who were in fact democracies.

[DinoDoc]

Why do people insist on taking Agathon seriously?