03-15-2004, 07:53 PM
What you're saying is that you can't promote democracy in countries where it has never existed before, only in areas that had experimented with it in the past. Ok, that's a distinction I can appreciate, thanks.
I also enjoyed the links, did give me a bit of a brush up on Japan and Germany. However, here's an exert on Afghanistan from http://www.worldrover.com/history/afghanis...an_history.html.
Now, that's not "full" democracy but again, I don't think we should expect a form of democracy that will resemble ours in any way. I also figure there is a good chance that the Afghanis, just as we did, will have to take this initial constitution they created, give it a few years to see all its weaknesses, and say "To hell with this", and rewrite it. To expect a peaceful, rosy near future without some really raucous disagreement would be outright lunacy. It's the growing pains that have to define them and if America tries to staple this provisional constitution to them so some politician can hold to the "success" mantra, then I agree that failure is a certainty. If we don't have the stomach to watch the Afghanis fight like a couple stray cats in a wet cardboard box, then I agree, it would have been better never to have tried at all.
Now Iraq is a whole different ballgame and I suspect was what you were focusing on. Yes, I do see the problem of Iraqis not being able to go back into their history and say "let's try that again". In that sense, we are indeed involved in something completely new and extremely risky. The kurds are also another element which throws the whole thing in peril. On that, yes, we'll have to wait and see and yes, it may be something someone like Bush is not equipped to handle. On that, I can see your point.
I can also see your point of looking to other countries where attempts at "nation building" ended up more like nation destroying. Haiti and Liberia for example. The problem was, again, this ridiculous attempt to just foist upon the people a guy or a group that *we* liked, then dust our hands off and go back and give a "peace in our time" speech while the country we're "helping" is screaming "Screw you! We don't even like that guy! We're doing this!" And of course when there's unrest, we go and send in troops to protect the scumbag we appointed. That is, indeed, promoting "freedom" at the point of a gun. Like I said, it's oxymoronic and of course it can't work.
Heh, trust me, compared to other arguments I have, this one is downright tame so I'm more than used to it :). Including arguments with my parents ;). But just because your posts to me haven't exactly been cordial doesn't mean I have to get furious in turn. You expected me to because you thought I was some sort of Bush-fanatic partisan. Not everyone that disagrees with you is doing it for duplicitous reasons and with all your worldly experience, I'd figure you know that. I wanted reasons and reasons I got. Thank you.
But it has taken almost, what, 5 posts of me baiting you two to get any responses pointing out gaps in my knowledge (existance of democratic movements prior to our assitance), but I do appreciate you presenting them.
I also enjoyed the links, did give me a bit of a brush up on Japan and Germany. However, here's an exert on Afghanistan from http://www.worldrover.com/history/afghanis...an_history.html.
Quote:In 1964, King Zahir Shah promulgated a liberal constitution providing for a two-chamber legislature to which the king appointed one-third of the deputies. The people elected another third, and the remainder were selected indirectly by provincial assemblies. Although Zahir's "experiment in democracy" produced few lasting reforms, it permitted the growth of unofficial extremist parties of both left and right. This included the
communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which had close ideological ties to the Soviet
Union. In 1967, the PDPA split into two major rival factions: the Khalq (Masses) faction headed by Nur
Muhammad Taraki and supported by the military, and the Parcham (Banner) faction led by Babrak Karmal. The split reflected deep ethnic, class, and ideological divisions within Afghan society.
Now, that's not "full" democracy but again, I don't think we should expect a form of democracy that will resemble ours in any way. I also figure there is a good chance that the Afghanis, just as we did, will have to take this initial constitution they created, give it a few years to see all its weaknesses, and say "To hell with this", and rewrite it. To expect a peaceful, rosy near future without some really raucous disagreement would be outright lunacy. It's the growing pains that have to define them and if America tries to staple this provisional constitution to them so some politician can hold to the "success" mantra, then I agree that failure is a certainty. If we don't have the stomach to watch the Afghanis fight like a couple stray cats in a wet cardboard box, then I agree, it would have been better never to have tried at all.
Now Iraq is a whole different ballgame and I suspect was what you were focusing on. Yes, I do see the problem of Iraqis not being able to go back into their history and say "let's try that again". In that sense, we are indeed involved in something completely new and extremely risky. The kurds are also another element which throws the whole thing in peril. On that, yes, we'll have to wait and see and yes, it may be something someone like Bush is not equipped to handle. On that, I can see your point.
I can also see your point of looking to other countries where attempts at "nation building" ended up more like nation destroying. Haiti and Liberia for example. The problem was, again, this ridiculous attempt to just foist upon the people a guy or a group that *we* liked, then dust our hands off and go back and give a "peace in our time" speech while the country we're "helping" is screaming "Screw you! We don't even like that guy! We're doing this!" And of course when there's unrest, we go and send in troops to protect the scumbag we appointed. That is, indeed, promoting "freedom" at the point of a gun. Like I said, it's oxymoronic and of course it can't work.
Quote:Be thankful that there are at least some who are willing to point out gaps in your knowledge, but remember they are under no constraint, unlike your parents, to do so nicely.
Heh, trust me, compared to other arguments I have, this one is downright tame so I'm more than used to it :). Including arguments with my parents ;). But just because your posts to me haven't exactly been cordial doesn't mean I have to get furious in turn. You expected me to because you thought I was some sort of Bush-fanatic partisan. Not everyone that disagrees with you is doing it for duplicitous reasons and with all your worldly experience, I'd figure you know that. I wanted reasons and reasons I got. Thank you.
But it has taken almost, what, 5 posts of me baiting you two to get any responses pointing out gaps in my knowledge (existance of democratic movements prior to our assitance), but I do appreciate you presenting them.