Of course citing failures isn't a reason to invalidate a particular policy. Nothing works 100%. However, I'd like you to show me when E&E (a.k.a., American Foreign Policy at the mo) actually works. A single example. In any of the past five years.

In the interest of full disclosure self-promoting imperialist TR was refused the Congressional Medal of Honor back when he lobbied for it, but was granted the medal by Bill Clinton.

Why pick five years when you could as easily pick a hundred? Note that every single fight we've been in these last fivescore years and more has been on behalf of the greater freedom against the greater tyranny. Democracy's greater virtue did not come to an end in August 1945, I'll have you remember.

Horse crap. You've got WW2 definitely in your camp. You've got Korea, Panama, and Grenada as iffy. You've got the Spanish-American war, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II (show me the functioning democracy as a result of either of those conflicts) and Afghanistan (it's falling apart b/c we left too soon) as firmly against.
And I chose those five years because all the good will that we had in the world (in both political capital from being, you know, diplomatic for the past half-century, and from after 9/11 (when there were pro-US demonstrations in Tehran, for crap's sake) has been completely wasted by the policy of E&E.
Tell me again how killing and humiliation is supposed to spread (American) democracy?

You kill democracy's enemies that they may not impede democracy: dead oppressors are singularly ineffectual at it, or had you noticed? Where's the objection to this? Only in pacifism, and pacifism isn't a sustainable philosophy: either the pacifism or the pacifist must perish under attack, as may be demonstrated by pacifists hoisting the Jolly Roger under sufficient provocation: pacifism isn't exactly in play in spitting on soldiers and calling them baby-killers, or beating them savagely on the streets.

You discredit the antidemocrats' ideas that they may have nothing to impede democracy with. If they are humiliated, it is no more than they deserve, and indeed, far less: because I've seen what un-democracy does, I want antidemocrats exterminated. When the world is all democracies, it will be a far better world. Let the unenlightened of the world beware the wrath of democracy aroused.

You seem unaware that we still have our military presence in Afghanistan. The local liberaloid weekly meticulously notes the US casualties in both Irag and Afghanistan, and we're still taking casualties in Afghanistan, rest assured.

And try telling me, if you please, how a wimpy, unreal Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton style of foreign policy "is supposed to spread... democracy?" And why are you comfortable with it?

Well, for starters, by not replacing dictatorships with military rulership (yes, RULERSHIP) that they have no say in and control over?

Howz the democracy going in Iraq and Afghanistan anywayz?

About as well as your spelling.:rolleyes:

wots wrong wiz my zpelling?

I'm sure Maggie will tell you. ;)

1)So the only way to spread democracy is to kill people, right? You do understand that you sound like the Socialist/Communist revolutionaries of the 1960's and 70's who believed they could jumpstart a S/C revolution with some explosives. Yeah, that worked really well. For a more concrete example...how well is democracy spreading in Iraq? Oh yeah...that civil war bit...right, right.
2)What the hell are you talking about? Kindly define your antecedent. What does 'you' refer to?
3)Yeah, I know there are still casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we were talking about spreading democracy with cluster bombs. How well is that working, again? How much of Afghanistan does the Taliban control these days?

I haven't heard the Taliban is having much success at controlling anything in Afghanistan. The Afghan government, admittedly such as it is, isn't giving up without a fight and neither are the international forces there. This leaves the Taliban with pressing problems of survival that don't leave much available for the problems of control -- which are large in Afghanistan in any case, as a particularly ornery independence of mindset is as Afghan as the day is long. Shooting at uninvited foreigners is an even more prevalent national sport than that mounted game with a dead goat.

Do you really think you can morally support the idea that democracy's -- thus mankind's -- enemies should be thought of as people? People are who they hurt. Should they not be prevented? Face it, bub: I'm more pro-democracy and pro-human than you are. Today, anyway. Pull up your socks.

Surely you've heard of the "impersonal you" from English class? I know I have. Is your English somewhat deficient, or are you merely quibbling just to show you can quibble? I can think of better hobbies -- give hand bookbinding a thought. I mean not only this forum's readership in general, but myself, and you personally, head slice. Don't be wanking while democracy's enemies fuck up the planet.

It is unlikely that any government will ever 'control' Afghanistan. At least not in the near future. Have a look into the history of the country and you'll see why. The country has never been unified under one leader and has always been subject to corruption and any number of other nasty words used to describe these sorts of situations. Suggesting that Afghanistan is one country is like suggesting that all indigenous Americans are from the same tribe. Afghanistan is a just a land mass which is inhabited by different tribes who've been forced by outside rule or inner terrorism to adhere to the same rules. This has been a failure of immense proportions throughout history. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the power to change that.

Any chance someone will try just denationalizing the whole zone and breaking it down into little pieces? Each section (lets say there are 300 of them) could elect a local council to deal with basic issues pertaining to that area, much like a village government. That way you could get by with only a handful of
laws designed to stop power players in each peice from lumping them all back together again, such as saying that no contract can be made which includes more than 10 zones. Very rough idea, but the gist is to revert government back to the way it was 1700 years ago. If most of the country lives the same way they did back then, why update the government? Just zone off comercial areas and keep everyone separate. Add to this if you want, just musing.

9th, I suppose if that were to happen, then there would be tribal wars just as there has been historically, and one will fight to have more power than the next. Arguments will happen over boundaries etc. It'd be nice if what you've suggested could occur peacefully, but history suggests that if the people of the area couldn't live peacefully that way in the past, what has changed to make it happen now? Is it possible that a democratic process managed by an outside party (perhaps the UN for what it's worth) could facilitate such a thing? Personally, I doubt it. My faith in democratic processes with regard to international events is fairly non-existant at this point. In saying that though, now that events are in motion, the only way to move is forward.