USA's Moral Obligation to Spread Democracy: Thoughts?

[Smurf]

I was reading this article and I couldn't resist quoting it

The Iraqi democratic opposition, not a radical movement, incidentally, bankers, engineers and people like that for the most part, they were continually rebuffed in Washington. Last February, according to Iraqi and government sources, they came to the White House with a plea for support for a simple statement calling for parliamentary democracy in Iraq. They were rebuffed. You will notice, incidentally, that from August through March, through the end of the war, there was nothing in the press, nothing in the media about the Iraqi democratic opposition, none of their statements, none of their spokespeople cited. It's kind of interesting if you think about it. These are the forces that for years have fought against Saddam Hussein and called for democracy in Iraq, parliamentary democracy. And there are lots of them. Of course, they don't function inside Iraq. They can't. Under the kind of regime we like to support they'd be killed if they did that. What they did was this, they exist in Europe, in England. You can read their statements in the German press, in the British press and so on, not in the American press. I haven't found a word referring to them. They continue to be rebuffed by the media and by the Government just as they had during the period when Saddam Hussein was George Bush's great friend and the reason is obvious when you look at their statements. Yes, they were opposed to Saddam Hussein, but they were opposed to the war. They didn't want to see their country destroyed. They wanted a peaceful settlement and knew that it was possible. In fact, their position was indistinguishable from that of the American peace movement. I managed to sneak one of their spokesmen into an MIT teach-in and you couldn't tell the difference between his position and any other opponents to the war. Well, that fact had to be obscured in the press and it's done, another great propaganda achievement.

 

[Royce]

Smurf,
I watched a program just last week on either the History Channel or one of the PBS channels that said that the bombs were not the reason Japan surrendered to the USA. The main reason was that Soviet Russia had just declared war on Japan and there was no way that Japan could hold them off. They would rather surrender to the US than be occupied by Soviet Russia just as so many Germans rushed to surrender to the Allies rather than be captured by the Russians.
You are right in that Japan was trying to sue for peace but would not accept an unconditional surrender. While Roosevelt was demanding an unconditional surrender he was no longer alive when the Bombs were dropped. That as Truman's decision and I think not only was it correct but the only rational decision available to him. The people of the united States would not accept anything less than an unconditional surrender from Japan and probably would have convicted Truman as a war criminal himself had he not dropped the bombs when they were available.
The same program pointed out that just before the Germans surrendered they attempted to ship via submarine thousands of pounds of uranium dioxide to Japan. The captain of the sub was at sea when Germany surrendered and turned his boat and cargo into the USA.

As far as the USA have a moral obligation to export democracy to the rest of the world, I don't accept it as a Moral Imperative but can accept it as the right thing to do. If the rest of you think that it is not right, even criminal, then by the same reasoning we, the USA, are not obliged to act as the policemen and protector of the rest of the world, nor are we obliged or obligated to feed, trade, support nor give aide to the rest of the world, yet we do.
I do not think that we became rich and powerful by exploiting the rest of the world. While all of you may hate us and condemn us you are all in a hurry to get in line to trade with us and take our money and technology.
Remember we are a very young nation and have come onto the world scene as a world military and economic power only in the last 80-90 years. Prior to that it was England, France, Germany, Spain and others who were exploiting and colonizing the world and it was these countries and there ruthless actions that are still the cause of many of the worlds problems today including and especially the Mid and south East.

 

[vanesch]

Throughout history, nations have always invaded other nations, for various reasons, from stealing over christianising and colonising. The invading nations always had good (= moral) reasons to do so.
After WWII, there was some hope that this situation would finally come to an end, in that there would now be a world organisation who would deal with these situations, and it is true that very often, the US was, being a military and economically very strong nation, sollicited to execute the politics of this world organisation. Apparently that world organisation made too often a request for intervention to the US, because now the US thinks that it can do all that by itself. We're back to good old history and the dream of a better world is over again. Exporting one's value system by a nation is exactly what has always happened before, and which has been at the origin of endless suffering and conflicts. The very fact that the US thinks that it has the "moral duty" to export democracy and capitalism illustrates this point.

The fact that a nation, because it is military strong, gives itself the right to "export its ideals with bombs" is the nation-level equivalent of an individual taking "the right in his own hands" and goes in with the neighbours with a gun, shooting people if necessary, if he is of the opinion that their way of living doesn't comply to his moral standards. In most civilised countries, this is not permitted, and for good reasons. Normally, it is up to justice to decide, and then indeed, individuals (called policemen) execute what justice decided. But policemen are not mandated to go in by themselves, and impose THEIR OWN standards and morality.
Now, I have to say that I prefer it to be the US who has this in principle untollerable behaviour, than, say, the Kuwaitis, in that I'm probably personally not in danger, for I live in countries that luckily have "moral standards" which aren't too remote from the standard set by that powerful "police nation" that every nation should comply to. But this is by shear luck, because it could be otherwise. It could be the Kuwaitis who are the most powerful. Or the Chinese. Or the Cubans.

Concerning democracy, it is only as good as the average population. And that's often what is wrong with it: when taking the average of what the population thinks, one usually gets rather low standards and stupid ideas. I prefer an enlightened leadership over a democratic leadership, but I prefer a democratic leadership over a merciless and stupid dictator. I think that something far better would be a "democracy of the educated", as it was, when the ancient greeks invented it. But even their democracy killed off Socrates.

Concerning capitalism, I think it is the modern equivalent of the law of the jungle, in that, indeed, the fittest survives. And you get great cellular phones and toasters out of it.

So back to the original question: does the US have the moral obligation to export its value system ? Answer: if it thinks so, to its own moral standards, it has. In the same way as Ben Laden exports the Islamic value system, as the Romans exported the Pax Romana, and the Europeans exported christianism (once in the 11th century, and then again in the 19th century).
All of them thought they had the "moral obligation". A lot of blood has flown for moral obligations, but hey, that's history.

 

[Royce]

The very fact that the US thinks that it has the "moral duty" to export democracy and capitalism illustrates this point.

All of us in the United States don't feel that we have a moral duty to export anything or import anything either for that matter. We are not the only nation in Iraq nor are we in Iraq without the consent of the UN.
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!

The fact that a nation, because it is military strong, gives itself the right to "export its ideals with bombs" is the nation-level equivalent of an individual taking "the right in his own hands" and goes in with the neighbours with a gun, shooting people if necessary, if he is of the opinion that their way of living doesn't comply to his moral standards. In most civilized countries, this is not permitted, and for good reasons.

I don't believe that we have done this in recent history. I may be wrong but this sound like pure propaganda to me. If I am wrong please point out the incidences and I will apologize.

Concerning democracy, it is only as good as the average population. And that's often what is wrong with it: when taking the average of what the population thinks, one usually gets rather low standards and stupid ideas. I prefer an enlightened leadership over a democratic leadership, but I prefer a democratic leadership over a merciless and stupid dictator.

No nation or state is completely pure and innocent and the US is certainly not perfect; and, as you said, nations are made up of people and any nation is no better than its people. When people finally become perfect and perfectly civilized then perhaps our nation states will be perfect too.

I think that something far better would be a "democracy of the educated", as it was, when the ancient Greeks invented it. But even their democracy killed off Socrates.

From what I have read and been taught it was Socrates himself that killed Socrates off because he choose not to live in the Athenian society as it was and could not live anywhere else.

So back to the original question: does the US have the moral obligation to export its value system ? Answer: if it thinks so, to its own moral standards, it has. In the same way as Ben Laden exports the Islamic value system, as the Romans exported the Pax Romana, and the Europeans exported christianism (once in the 11th century, and then again in the 19th century).
All of them thought they had the "moral obligation". A lot of blood has flown for moral obligations, but hey, that's history.

Agreed, except I take extreme exception to the manner in which Ben Laden et al export their "Islamic values."

 

[vanesch]

We are not the only nation in Iraq nor are we in Iraq without the consent of the UN.
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!

Apparently the Bush administration repeated that silliness so often that you really believe that. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Honestly, if the link would have been established, you'd have all the rights in the world to do what you are doing.
As you had (and the world was behind you) when you invaded Afghanistan. But it simply isn't the case. And it is OBVIOUS that there is no relationship because Saddam was one of the biggest enemies of Ben Laden, who cannot tolerate non-religious leadership in Arab countries. Saddam (back when he was still a friend of the West) fought Islamism in the war with Iran. He fought it with WMD given by the West.
The only thing that Saddam did, as ANY ARAB NATION, is to give money to the Palestinian resistance. BTW, most of the money they have comes from Saoudi Arabia and the Gulf states, not from Iraq, and so does most of the money that Al Qaida has.

 

[vanesch]

From what I have read and been taught it was Socrates himself that killed Socrates off because he choose not to live in the Athenian society as it was and could not live anywhere else.

No, Socrates was convicted to the death penalty because of his "bad influence on the youth of Athens". If I remember well, he could have obtained an arrangement to convert this into exile. But he preferred not to, and preferred to do it himself.

 

[Aquamarine]

Others contend that Japan had been trying to surrender for at least two months, but the US refused by insisting on an unconditional surrender—which they did not get even after the bombing, the bone of contention being retention of the Emperor.[9] (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html ) In fact, while several diplomats favored surrender, the leaders of the Japanese military were committed to fighting a 'Decisive Battle' on Kyushu, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward—all of which the Americans knew from reading decrypted Japanese communications. The Japanese government never did decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme Council was still split, with the hardliners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials, and no occupation. Only the direct intervention of the Emperor ended the dispute, and even after that there was a serious risk of a military coup.

Some have argued that the Soviet Union's switch from friendly neutral to enemy might have been enough to convince the Japanese military of the need to accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration (plus some provision for the emperor). In the event, the decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands was known, but had the war continued, the Soviets would have been able to invade Hokkaido well before the Allied invasion of Kyushu.

Supporters of the bombing concede that although the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiqués as far back as January of 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines, Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the Atomic bomb.

While Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, the civilian leadership could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire on its own. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds.

Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. Nearly 200,000 Japanese and 12,000 American troops were killed in the most bloody battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan’s final surrender. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man, an order which it carried out. Major General Masakazu Amanu, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimum losses.

After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more and more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Yalta Proclamation.

According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of emperor Hirohito's closest advisors stated that "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war". Hisatsune Sakomizu the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945 called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war". According to these historians and others the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagisaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the Atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29’s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.

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

 

[Smurf]

Royce, Thank you for that info on the Soviets, I hadn't thought of that. It is my understanding that The Russian Navy was ill equipped to take Japan and the USA, having a blockade of the Islands, would have been able to stop any attempt to invade the islands. It is true that the russians invaded Munchuria, China, Korea and Vietnam. Some extra initiative. Are we in agreement that the bomb was unnecessary? I think a demonstration, if that, was all that was necessary.

Concerning Socrates, I believe vanesch is corrrect. That kind of incident could not happen in a modern, western society simply because of Freedom of Speech and the fact that we place a much higher price on human life than they did in Ancient times.

 

[Smurf]

All of us in the United States don't feel that we have a moral duty to export anything or import anything either for that matter. We are not the only nation in Iraq nor are we in Iraq without the consent of the UN.
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 was not connected to 9/11. As Venesch said if it was you would have like 20 countries in there like you do in Afghanistan (Everyone is in afghanistan - even the Canadians, no one doubted you have reason to invade them) but you don't, its just you and your lacky the british, and they won't last long as blair is unlilkely to get re-elected.

I don't believe that we have done this in recent history. I may be wrong but this sound like pure propaganda to me. If I am wrong please point out the incidences and I will apologize.

Nicuaraga, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Iran, Laos - Iraq!
True, most of these didn't have democratic governments when the US was done with them. So I guess you couldn't say they were exporting morals (morals of the average person that is, corporations are another thing all together)
I'm sorry my friend but its not the Michael Moore-esque that's propoganda, well, at least not compared to your 'Free Press'; he's fighting fire with fire.

No nation or state is completely pure and innocent and the US is certainly not perfect; and, as you said, nations are made up of people and any nation is no better than its people. When people finally become perfect and perfectly civilized then perhaps our nation states will be perfect too.

Thats admirable of you, unfortunatly it looks like this is going to take a long time as many places in the world are moving backwards, and The US would be too if it wasn't already rock bottom and corporate run.

Agreed, except I take extreme exception to the manner in which Ben Laden et al export their "Islamic values."

I think if you research some of the examples I gave above (from sources outside of mainstream media - try reading something by Noam Chomsky) you will see Bin Laden in a different Light (he's still a bastard, but a different kind of bastard than CNN likes to make him out to be)

I tried to write this post in a non anti-american fashion, I'm a historian, I try not to attach opinions, except in cases when evidence is unavailable.

 

[the number 42]

I do not think that we became rich and powerful by exploiting the rest of the world. While all of you may hate us and condemn us you are all in a hurry to get in line to trade with us and take our money and technology.

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...?

 

[Smurf]

I've lived in Africa - the west (mainly the US) needs to stop exploiting the third world.

 

[vanesch]

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...?

This is true for me, for instance. I've lived in Germany and now I live in France, where I don't have national voting right. I could vote in my own country by correspondence, but I don't because I don't follow the situation so I wouldn't even know to vote for whom. Honestly, I don't mind. I do follow the political situation in the country I live in, but I don't vote, and I don't feel anything "missing" that way.

 

[Smurf]

As far as the USA have a moral obligation to export democracy to the rest of the world, I don't accept it as a Moral Imperative but can accept it as the right thing to do.

You say you don't think its a moral obligation but still the right thing to do, but as far as I can tell it's essentially the same thing. Its not a moral obligation because its your opinion , not a fundamental truth, its not like 2+2=4, Democracy is not the best form of government and will not work best everywhere in the world, and it shouldn't be put somewhere from someone else who since its none of their business.

I personally feel America (modern democracy) has one of the worst forms of government because it allows itself to be so massively dominated by corporations.

If the rest of you think that it is not right, even criminal, then by the same reasoning we, the USA, are not obliged to act as the policemen and protector of the rest of the world, nor are we obliged or obligated to feed, trade, support nor give aide to the rest of the world, yet we do.

This is part of the 'romantic american view' that Ludwig mentioned. The only time I am aware of that America has helped another nation that needed it was when it was an unintentional consequence of them looking after their own economic interests.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2000-07/05chomsky.htm

Remember we are a very young nation and have come onto the world scene as a world military and economic power only in the last 80-90 years. Prior to that it was England, France, Germany, Spain and others who were exploiting and colonizing the world and it was these countries and there ruthless actions that are still the cause of many of the worlds problems today including and especially the Mid and south East.

This is true, but while America was not the first to exploit the third world, it is the only one still doing it (EU and Japan are getting closer and closer though). The Great European Empires ended in the early 20th Century, and here we are in the early 21st century, many decades later and the USA is still exploiting the third world to a degree perviously unheard of, not to mention in much different ways which they have no defence against.

 

[Royce]

Apparently the Bush administration repeated that silliness so often that you really believe that. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER that Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Honestly, if the link would have been established, you'd have all the rights in the world to do what you are doing.
As you had (and the world was behind you) when you invaded Afghanistan. But it simply isn't the case. And it is OBVIOUS that there is no relationship because Saddam was one of the biggest enemies of Ben Laden, who cannot tolerate non-religious leadership in Arab countries. Saddam (back when he was still a friend of the West) fought Islamism in the war with Iran. He fought it with WMD given by the West.
The only thing that Saddam did, as ANY ARAB NATION, is to give money to the Palestinian resistance. BTW, most of the money they have comes from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, not from Iraq, and so does most of the money that Al Qaida has.

Supposedly the reason we are in Iraq is that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction 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. Saddam also was reported to support world wide terrorism materially and economically not just giving aid to the Palestinian terrorist. We are at war against terrorism period wherever and whoever it may be. I cannot see why any so called civilized and humanitarian person or country could object to our invasion of Iraq to do away with Saddam and his horrific regime

 

[Royce]

No, Socrates was convicted to the death penalty because of his "bad influence on the youth of Athens". If I remember well, he could have obtained an arrangement to convert this into exile. But he preferred not to, and preferred to do it himself.

Thats my point, it was his choice to drink the hemlock. He was not "killed off" by the Athenian democracy. We don't really disagree here it was just the wording that you used.

 

[Royce]

Iraq was not connected to 9/11. As Venesch said if it was you would have like 20 countries in there like you do in Afghanistan (Everyone is in Afghanistan - even the Canadians, no one doubted you have reason to invade them) but you don't, its just you and your lackey the British, and they won't last long as Blair is unlikely to get re-elected.

See my earlier reply to vanesch. We are not the only ones there in Iraq nor is it just us and the English who are our allies not our lackeys, shame on you, The Spanish, the Japanese among other were and are there also. This is a war on terrorism and Saddam was up to his eyeballs in it and even worse terrorized his own people and used gas on the Curds living in his country as well as the Iranians. Why would anybody complain about us doing away with his regime of terror for any reason

Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Iran, Laos - Iraq!

In none of those countries have we imposed our will or form of government upon the people of those countries. We were aiding often at the request of their government, Nicaragua and Grenada, fight of the Cubans and Cuban communist backed insurgents from imposing a communistic government by the force of arms.
If memory serves Qaddafi is still in power in Libya and our attack in Libia and Iran as well as Iraq was in retaliation of terrorist attacks against us citizens and military.
I don't remember us attacking Laos other than attacking North Vietnamese communists who were illegally using Laos as a safe harbor while they were attempting to impose there communistic government upon South Vietnam.

In none of the mentioned cases did we impose our way of life or form of government upon those countries by force.

 

[Royce]

Is there anyone from South America (especially Argentina, 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 Americanized. 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 'globalization' is often known outside the US as 'Americanization', 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...?

Then why do they buy them not only from us but from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China as well as Europe. We, The USA, are not the Satan that you make us out to be. It is not all our fault nor desire that modern technology is seducing the world. If you want to live in a mud hut and live a subsistence life go right ahead but you would then condemn the USA for your poverty and starvation.

 

[Smurf]

Iraq was not a threat to the United States, the United States hasn't faced a serious threat since 1812. Iraq was one of the weakest regimes in the area and even kuwait or Iran weren't considering it a threat. Iraq was a controlled by a horrible dictator, but so is North Korea and many other places, why arn't you invading them? Because you probably can't, because its cost would be outstanding, look how much iraq has costed you, your more in debt now than England was in ww2. Invading North Korea is unthinkable, it would simply be too expensive, all the propoganda in the world wouldn't get you a second term.

So why was invading Iraq a bad thing? Because it sends a message to the world, it tells countries that if your weak and oppose us you will be invaded, but if your stronger.. than you will be spared because we're a democracy and it'll be too expensive.
This message will lead more and more 'rogue' nations to become militaristic namely in the aquiration of nuclear weapons, because then the US wouldn't even consider invading you.

The same effect can be seen with the 'Star Wars' missile defence program that's being reincarnated. Even if it did work, it wasn't designed to defend against a large scale attack, if russia wants you wiped off the surface of the planet, they can do it. It will, however protect against India, Pakistan, North Korea, and China who have smaller caches of Nukes, so now you have the ability to nuke them, but they don't have the ability to nuke you because their caches are too small? what happens?
China builds more nukes
India builds more in response to China
Pakistan builds more in response to India
Iran speeds up its nuclear program in response to Pakistan
Rinse and Repeat.

It is my understanding that the Spanish, Japanese and other nations are only there for Peacekeeping, and it was only US and Britain during the invasion.
And I British Me Too-ism isn't unique to Iraq, they've been following you around since India got its independance, (no offence to any british people, but you are involved in a lot of US affairs).
I would like to add that the US doesn't put it below them to bully other western nations into helping them.

 

[Smurf]

In none of those countries have we imposed our will or form of government upon the people of those countries. We were aiding often at the request of their government, Nicaragua and Grenada, fight of the Cubans and Cuban communist backed insurgents from imposing a communistic government by the force of arms.
If memory serves Qaddafi is still in power in Libya and our attack in Libia and Iran as well as Iraq was in retaliation of terrorist attacks against us citizens and military.
I don't remember us attacking Laos other than attacking North Vietnamese communists who were illegally using Laos as a safe harbor while they were attempting to impose there communistic government upon South Vietnam.

In none of the mentioned cases did we impose our way of life or form of government upon those countries by force.

Royce this is an extremely detailed topic, I could explain it but if you don't want to learn about it, it won't help. so instead if you do want to learn about it I'll show you where to start:
http://www.zmag.org/intlideas.htm
http://www.zmag.org/terrorwar/TerrorWars/TerrorWars.cfm

 

[the number 42]

Then why do they buy them not only from us but from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and now China as well as Europe. We, The USA, are not the Satan that you make us out to be. It is not all our fault nor desire that modern technology is seducing the world. If you want to live in a mud hut and live a subsistence life go right ahead but you would then condemn the USA for your poverty and starvation.

Try not to see things in terms of

Satan-God
Winner-Loser
US Wealth - mud hut
Trade agreement - free handout
With us - against us

and you will fear the world less.

 

[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.