Democracy by Force

[Liveformx64]

Is the idea of "Democracy by Force" an oxy-moron?

When I say Democracy by Force I mean: Invading an unstable potentially dangerous nation to instill a democratic system. In the said hopes of producing a stable economic nation that can contribute to society. It seems that has been the policy of our conservative government as of late which is much hated by the left. Yes, hated, not disliked.

Things to consider before reply.

If you are going to use the Conspiracy mumbo-jubmo argument that Bush/Cheney Neo-Con movement is evil and wants to take over the world, you better make a damn good case, because I don't see that as a real threat in a 4-8 year term presidency. (hence the beauty of our democratic system).

Is it not our responsibility to the dark areas of the world, to shine light and provide hope?

If it is not our "place" to do such things, how would you have handled situations like preemptively invading Germany in WWII without a single shot being fired on U.S. soil?

[Barcs]

The Bush & Cheney Neo-Con movement is evil and wants to take over the world...

haha. Kidding (or am I?), but I see where you're going with this based on your questions near the bottom.

I consider Democracy by force an oxymoron simply because you can't force people to adopt a system that they don't want. Killing for Peace is another oxymoron that fits this scenario well. Democracy is about power to the people. By forcing them to change their system, it directly contradicts the concept of democracy. I do not believe it is our place in the world, to dictate what type of government a country has. People instantly label dictators as evil, because they fought to get where they are, however chances are the previous government was even worse, hence why there was a revolution. Revolutions are not done by one man. You need thousands to even stand a chance. Anyways, I digress. Historically, it does not work. Veitnam is a prime example of this. Obviously the main motivation behind the war is not to free the people. It's about money and power, just as it's always been throughout the history of the world. Germany was different because Adolph Hitler was killing millions of people in concentration camps and was hell bent on taking over the world. Also our strike wasn't exactly pre-emptive. We were attacked by Japan who was on Germany's side (although there is a lot of evidence that FDR was warned but ignored them so he could enter the war). WW2 was different, however in most cases I do not believe it is necessary to enter a war simply to change the system of government. If the people want change, they will create their own revolution, as has been done in the past. We have no right to tell another country what form of government they should have. This is why most of the world hates America right now. In the past century we have completely ignored our founding fathers advice to not get involved in foreign conflicts, and history keeps repeating itself. This war in Iraq could be the undoing of our economy. Is it worth it to destroy our own economy to save a country that doesn't need saving, and it is not our place to even do so?

[Still Growing]

Liveform,

There are two schools of thought: Consequentialism and Deontology.

These are two words you've probably never heard people using however they fit this situation perfectly.

Consequentialism= Is the theory that the ends justifies the means
Deontology= Is the theory that each individual action should be judged on their own accord.

This really isn't a Republican vs Democratic viewpoint; there are people on both sides who follow this ideology. For example, higher taxes for the wealthy may be bad for them but its good for those less fortunate so this would be a consequentialistic viewpoint.

[SomeRandomGuy]

The idea of invading a country to install a democratic government has always seemed strange to me. I believe that by doing this, our government is actually worse than a dictator. A dictator forces his will on the people of his country. The US government, on the other hand, is forcing its will on people in different countries. Of course the argument is that it is ok to do so, because the people are getting democracy. What if the people don't want democracy, though? By invading and setting up a democratic government we would actually be going against the will of the people.

[Still Growing]

Furthermore I'd like to add that War is not a Republican thing solely.

I know that Republicans look and act like the proponents of war however if Obama gets elected not much will change in the way of Iraq.

The military complex is so intertwined in the US that I would completely surprised if Obama were elected and no base was put in Iraq.

Yea I can hear that Republicans and Democrats are different but when actions are taken I hardly see the difference.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

The idea of invading a country to install a democratic government has always seemed strange to me. I believe that by doing this, our government is actually worse than a dictator. A dictator forces his will on the people of his country. The US government, on the other hand, is forcing its will on people in different countries. Of course the argument is that it is ok to do so, because the people are getting democracy. What if the people don't want democracy, though? By invading and setting up a democratic government we would actually be going against the will of the people.

In theory I can see your point but in reality I don't think its that clear cut. You and others make it sound like the US goes around invading countries every month.

I disagree with the US invading Iraq because its too big of a mess. BUT, I can't say that it was completely wrong. Saddam invaded Kuwait and there were sanctions or whatever that he was not obeying. Iraq gave up its innocence the moment it invaded another country. The Iraqi people's right to serve under a dictator and to reject democracy ended as soon as Saddam started to venture out of his country to attack our allies. People forget this.

Its a shame that the Iraqi people have not rejected the muslim extremists in their country and its a shame that more of them have not stood up earlier to fight for their own liberty. They've been beaten down so long and they are fearful of the same terrorists we are.

People forget that the Iraqi people are peace loving and they WANT America to stand by its commitment to end the tyranny.

Don't believe for a second that if we ran out of Iraq that the Iraqi people would be happy. The peaceful Iraqis would suffer. We broke it, now we must fix it. We cannot leave these people stranded now that we made the mess.

I probably agree with you more than you think on most issues. People are loaded with partisanship and walking parrots of what they should and should not say regarding Iraq. Its become political fodder and its now used as a political tool rather than simply applying what is right and wrong. Its not popular to give ANY contradictary support to Iraq out of fear that we'll be supporting the Republicans. Now Dems must fall in line and take the winning position of the argument. What I'm saying is not popular because it seems like Republican talk.

I'll probably vote for Obama this fall for various reasons however I also don't think he'll cut and run. He's telling all the crying liberals what they want to hear but I think that Obama secretly has more sense and will make his own mind up. While running for office he spoke of withdrawal dates but as soon as he won the primary he started to change his tone. I think , like other politicians, that he'll say whatever he can to get elected but once getting elected he'll do as he wishes.

[Brutha]

A democracy needs a citizenship that wants democracy.

If Toquesville is right a democracy also needs the belief in it's citizens that everyone is equal.
You don't have that belief in states like Iraq. The Sunnis don't see Shias or Kurds as equals.
For a democracy it's important that the president doesn't make distictions between different ethnic groups.

In our western democracys people vote based on political ideas, I don't know whether democracy works anywhere where people vote based on whether a politicans come from the same ethic background or clans as they do.
Those politicans see themselves responsible for their votes, which happen to be people from the same ethnicity.

States need leaders who treat people equally.

Mentally seperating democracy where people vote their leaders into office and liberal society where you have a freedom of speech and property rights is also worthwhile.
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria is a nice article that lays out the distinctions of the two concepts and the practical problems that come from confusing them with each other.

If it is not our "place" to do such things, how would you have handled situations like preemptively invading Germany in WWII without a single shot being fired on U.S. soil?

The real difference with Germany was that Germany had had a democracry and functioning political parties (plural) before.

Consequentialism= Is the theory that the ends justifies the means

Even if you believe in Consequentialism, forcing democracy by war doesn't work.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If Toquesville is right a democracy also needs the belief in it's citizens that everyone is equal.
You don't have that belief in states like Iraq. The Sunnis don't see Shias or Kurds as equals.
For a democracy it's important that the president doesn't make distictions between different ethnic groups.

I think therein lies the problem. Race is so deeply ingrained into every faction of society, how can the Iraqi's overcome that?

I would argue the higher up race is on the priority list of a Countrys people, the lower the level of civilization in general.

-----

Maybe, it is sort of like trying to help a drug addict who hasn't hit rock bottom yet. The catalyst for change has not yet been initiated, and you can do everything to try and help to no avail.

In light of what was posted so far, I think the argument boils down to this.

Can we ignite the fuels of revolution synthetically like we have attempted in Iraq, or does it have to be done organically like most major and permanent revolutions.

Does history provide any examples of a synthetic or instigated revolution sticking?

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I disagree with the US invading Iraq because its too big of a mess. BUT, I can't say that it was completely wrong. Saddam invaded Kuwait and there were sanctions or whatever that he was not obeying. Iraq gave up its innocence the moment it invaded another country. The Iraqi people's right to serve under a dictator and to reject democracy ended as soon as Saddam started to venture out of his country to attack our allies. People forget this.

I agreed with most of what you said. I would like to comment on this point, however. I disagree that the Iraqi people lost their right to choose their government based on the invasion of Kuwait. I think the US had every right to go to the aid of Kuwait, and help force the Iraqi military out. I think that the UN and individual countries had the right to enforce sanctions, trade embargoes, etc. against Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait. I do not, think, however, that this gave us the right to invade and overthrow their government or force our idea of an idea government on them.

I believe that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was wrong. We have also undertaken military action against other countries that has been viewed as wrong. Lets consider Iraq for a moment. It can be argued that we invaded Iraq with no provocation. Based on your logic, I can see an argument (not that I feel this way) for someone invading the US to set up a new government. The point is, it all comes down to perception. Since there is no way to definitively determine when an invasion or attack is justified and when it is not, by following that logic we open ourselves up to others following the same logic against us. Obviously if someone were to attack the US based on our invasion of Iraq, we would not consider that acceptable. I think there are others who may view our invasion of Iraq the same way.

[Brutha]

Maybe, it is sort of like trying to help a drug addict who hasn't hit rock bottom yet. The catalyst for change has not yet been initiated, and you can do everything to try and help to no avail.

You made the race problem a lot worse by switching to democracy in Iraq. Sunni and Shia didn't made war to each other before the US got into Iraq and broke the power structures that were there apart.

To overcome race you need a government who gets legitimicy through providing basic services and who treats everyone more or less equal.
It bad when those tribal networks get legitimicy through providing services that the state can't give.
Overtime ethnic differences matter less that way.

The invasion kept the state Iraq from providing basic services to it's citizens and that vacuum got filed by tribal networks. That the opposite of what we need to have a functioning liberal democracy in Iraq.

Can we ignite the fuels of revolution synthetically like we have attempted in Iraq, or does it have to be done organically like most major and permanent revolutions.

There a lot of synthetic ways that don't come down to invading a country and changing it's power system with brute force.
One popular way is to give worldbank credits to a country and threaten to withdraw credit in the case that certain political changes don't happen in a country when it comes to the Washinton Consensus.

In addition you can fund things that you want more off. You can improve free press by giving journalists free printing presses.
There a lot that you can spend money on to shift improve the prospects of certain groups in those countries.

[Still Growing]

Some Random Guy,
Good points.

I definitely think invading Iraq was wrong but not completely wrong. To clarify, I think that if it was as simple as dethroning Saddam and if the US had immediate success we wouldn't be having this conversation.

People judge you not what you do but the results from what you do. Its not fair but such is life.

Its interesting that most countries simply ignored Iraq invading Kuwait but when the US invaded Iraq now thats big news. It has become more about what the US shouldn't do than about what shouldn't be done. Think about it.

How many countries stand by and watch the slaughtering in Darfur. Little is done but people sit in their nice homes and judge the US's aggression as the second coming of Hitler.

We have to keep a perspective on the situation that is free from poltics. This is so hard in today's world.

On the one side I'm anti Bush and anti war but on the other side I'm putting it into perspective. Its contradictory, I know. But I hope people can gain some perspective over the subject.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The invasion kept the state Iraq from providing basic services to it's citizens and that vacuum got filed by tribal networks.

Don't you think Saddam kept the state from providing basic services?

I would bet there are more public services in place than ever was before Saddam. Not that public services is the end game here.

Where does the trillions in oil money go in the middle eastern Countries?

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You made the race problem a lot worse by switching to democracy in Iraq. Sunni and Shia didn't made war to each other before the US got into Iraq and broke the power structures that were there apart.

I have never understood why the US government seems to intent on keeping Iraq a single country. The country of Iraq as we know it didn't exist until 1926. It was a combination of 3 regions from the Ottoman Empire. I have to wonder if it wouldn't be better to split Iraq into 3 separate nations, one for each of the major ethnic groups and let each rule themselves. I don't know if that would actually work, but it doesn't seem like it can be much worse than the current situation.

[ar81]

Democracy is not just about voting.
It is about participation of citizens.
You need a culture of democracy before you have a democracy.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by ar81

Democracy is not just about voting.
It is about participation of citizens.
You need a culture of democracy before you have a democracy.

hahah "Laser Guided Democracy," so concise

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I have never understood why the US government seems to intent on keeping Iraq a single country. The country of Iraq as we know it didn't exist until 1926. It was a combination of 3 regions from the Ottoman Empire. I have to wonder if it wouldn't be better to split Iraq into 3 separate nations, one for each of the major ethnic groups and let each rule themselves. I don't know if that would actually work, but it doesn't seem like it can be much worse than the current situation.

Some Randon Guy,
Another brilliant comment. Actually this would be the most logical solution. We all know that countries unite regions into one by force. Now the only way to make assimiliation is by force and killing off those who resist. Saddam attempted that and obviously never finished the job.

The actual execution of doing that may be difficult. Also the new Fed that backs the new Iraqi dollars is most likely controlled by the US's Private Federal Reserve Bank of New York. There would be less profits in allowing Iraq to break into three countries because two of the three new countries would probably break chains off our Fed System that we are implimenting.

I've complained about our private Fed system on this blog WAY too much. People aren't interested in finance.
Well guess where the $70billion plus of Iraqi surplus oil money is?,,,,,, In the private Federal Reserve bank in New York.

Its hillarious that people don't see whats going on.

As soon as they toppled Saddam I made the comment to my wife "The first thing they'll do is print a new currency that they can control" Boom this was top of the agenda. I immediately went to Europe and bought a sizable investment of this new currency. Why because of who is backing it. No,..... breaking up into three countries may be good for the people but as long as the US has its talins embedded it will never happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/wo...=2&oref=slogin

[Brutha]

Don't you think Saddam kept the state from providing basic services?

I would bet there are more public services in place than ever was before Saddam. Not that public services is the end game here.

You didn't talk about public services in the way that term is understood in the west.
I do mean basic services and linked for a text that describes the concept of basic services a bit more in detail.

The strategy that the US used to reduce the amount of violence in Iraq during the surge was to give those tribal/ethic groups more autonomy and power. That only increase the power of those groups to be responsible for basic services.

And the Iraqi government is pretty bad at doing anything at the moment. The are totally incapable of providing security which is one basic service that states provide to it's citizens.

Hunger doubled in 2005 compared to pre Invasion times where Saddam ruled.

You should also see that the US took away a lot of the rights to unionize in Iraq. Union are traditionally organisations that produce political thought that's not focused on certain ethnic backgrounds.
Unions aren't really liked by companies who want to make money in Iraq and the US isn't only in Iraq to make life better for the Iraqi people...

I have never understood why the US government seems to intent on keeping Iraq a single country.

International law. Invading a country without an UN mandate is one thing. Redrawing borders by force is another.
It's one of those things that are forbidden in war. The Bush administration still wants to somehow argue that their invasion is legal.

The Iraqi themselves also don't want their country to get torn apart. To keep the country together, was the most important point on the agenda on the people who won the first Iraqi election.

There would be less profits in allowing Iraq to break into three countries because two of the three new countries would probably break chains off our Fed System that we are implimenting.

I think as long as those three country would have US forces in them, they wouldn't be able to break of chains with the US Fed.
For the Fed it's only important the US troops stay there with is easier to justify politically is a lesser amount of US soldiers die in civil war.
I don't see why three states should be harder to control.

[ar81]

Watch the documentary "Taxi ride to the dark side" and see those who tortured prisoners in Bagram, Abu Grahib, talking before the camera.
15 standard CIA practices of torture. 20 hours of torture a day.

If you know the basics of law, you will know that a suspect and a confirmed criminal is not the same. In Guantanamo you have suspects who have no rights to a due process. On top of that they are being tortured.

If that is "democracy by force", I am Elvis.

[Still Growing]

Brutha,
Three states would be harder to control because if you created three states surely one or two of the states might consider creating their own currency without backing from a private bank based in New York (of all places).

You are right, the US troop involvment keeps the private US Fed bank of NY managing the Iraq's new currency.

Also in previous posts I debated with you over the power of the private Fed Reserve bank of NY. Out of all 13 branches this one has been accused by many of being the most powerful since it has a non compete bid, was the founding bank and has a perminent seat on board. Its ironic that now we see that this bank has Iraq's oil money pouring into it every day.

Would you concede that this looks fishy Brutha?

[Brutha]

I don't question here that the New York Fed and other firms want to make money in Iraq.
I just don't see how it's a disadvantage for them to have three states instead of one.

Three states would be harder to control because if you created three states surely one or two of the states might consider creating their own currency without backing from a private bank based in New York (of all places)

Why would creating more states make it more difficult to keep those states under the control of the Fed?

It's not like the Fed control the currency because no Iraqi considers switching to a different currency.
The control it because they have a variety of ways to influence the decisions being made.
From bribery, to US military involvement, to having control over all that Iraqi oil money.

I don't see how the factors that determine them having power over the currency would be different if Iraq would be seperated into three states.

[Lauxa]

Saddam provided pretty good public services before the invasion of Kuwait and the following war and sanctions.

Also, there are some that say the US ambassador implicitly gave Saddam the nod that he could invade Kuwait without consequences. And then the US back stabbed him.

I'm not going to look for sources since this would never be an easy thing to prove or disprove, but if it is true then does the US still have any claim to a moral high ground in either invasion of Iraq?

[Still Growing]

Lauxa,
The way I heard it was that Saddam called the US embassy and asked what the US policy was on Iraq. The US embassy stated the policy as it read without giving it much thought.

Of course we don't know the truth but I can completely see this happening.

Lets not try to down play Saddam's actions. They were wrong.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Why would creating more states make it more difficult to keep those states under the control of the Fed?

Its pointless for you and I to debate something that has not and probably will not happen.

[ar81]

This entire war is to make rich men richer.
Money is like a Pacman score stored on bank hard disk.

[ar81]

Democracy in Iraq...
More than 89000 documented casualties of civilians since 2003.
Looks like Columbine democracy...

[Still Growing]

ar81,
Its a shame.

[ar81]

CNN showed some time ago how women thought situation was better in Iraq before the war. One woman lost her job with the war and had to become a prostitute against her principles, and she needs to hide it from her husband too.

If that is democracy, I am Elvis.

[Still Growing]

ar81,
I agree with you that the war was about:
1. Making money
2. Selling weapons
3. Defending Israel
4. A hit to Islam

However, the story about the woman who lost her job does not mean that Iraq is not on its way to eventual Democracy.

The long term future of Iraq may very well be better now that Saddam's regime has been removed (this remains to be seen). However the ends do not justify the means; this is the real issue.

Just keepin it real.

[oBakasan]

"Democracy by force"?

I don't understand the logic. Why go through all the trouble of taking away power from the present government, only to give it away to some random farmers?

[Still Growing]

Obaka san,
Speaking of force, the damage is done; now what?