View on the recent Gaza/Israel stikes

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Reeeally? So tell me: just how are despotic oligarchies (most of the nondemocracies are so ruled) maintained, and democracy doesn't occur? That's right, it's by the oligarchies' naked force. That, sugarpop, is what's not very democratic.

Remove the oligarchy's naked force and thus its ability to impede the development of democratic republican government, and you've got a good thing going, do you not?

The best and most secure removal of despots occurs from within, not by the invasion by external forces attempting to impose their own brand of democracy.

Examples like:

The labor movement in Poland and the intelligentsia movement in the Czech Republic

The yellow revolution in the Phillipines.

The rose revolution in the Republic of Georgia.

The purple revolution in the Ukraine.

The end of apartheid in South Africa

A rainbow of relatively peaceful transition from despot to democracy!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Quite right, Ali, and it drives me to a fury. Quibbles over exactly what is the national interest always muddle the signal that we, or anyone, send. I put it down to the world's imperfection, and make such peace with it as I can. But there's always the hope of unsheathing justice's sword sometime later.

[Aliantha]

Oh well, I guess maybe some day we'll all know...or not.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

No arguments there, redux; these have all the good features you mentioned.

But, for the people of freedom, there's really no odds at all in who actually removes the oppressor, so long as the oppressor be removed. Sometimes it is peaceful and civilized, excellent, good for the common weal. Sometimes the oppressor puts up a fight, and then it's the artillery that presents the "arguments of kings." And things get done the hard way -- because the oppressor has too much of a taste for behaving in his sociopathic way.

This is something else that has to stay in view: in the small, shallower talent pools of Third World governance, a highly motivated sociopath can rise to head of state. Sociopathic rulers preside over sociopathic states, whereupon everything in the jurisdiction goes to shit. Where's the reason to let that happen? I've never heard of one that I thought was worthwhile. Prosperity is not found under sociopathic, all-powerful rulers. Prosperity is found where capital P Power is not the be-all, end-all, and where power's scope is strictly limited in both area and time.

I'm here to say that hard way or easy way, it must get done. Otherwise the body politic suffers from tumors, to say nothing of zits.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

See, this is why Aliantha and I often disagree but never fight: she's got this knack. Me, seriously, not so much.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And from Mr Yon.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It's rather sad that in some conflicts the US has chosen to inject themselves, yet in others they choose not to. I wonder what they criteria is for the US to stand up for democracy and shout/shoot down genocide and so called oligarchies? Would you care to tell me why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda and continues not to depose Mugabe? Surely those genocides are equal to anything Hussein ever committed?

Because we have very little international interest in those places. Same reason we are not in Darfur. We learned our lesson in Somalia. Hell, even the Europeans can't police their own backyard. Why did we go into Bosnia? You have to pick and choose. You are right, I totally agree, we cannot and should not go in and police the world. Nor should we lay our lives down for these places that are just total shit. But don't turn around and ask us why we will not come and help anymore, because hopefully those days are over. Countries want us to help only when it is their own self interest. Hey, that sounds just like the US.

[Aliantha]

It sounds like everyone really. I think everyone will be pulling their heads in over the next few years anyway. Who can afford to go to war atm?

[BrianR]

Sorry to interrupt, but the English Nazi in me demands that I correct those of you who believe that the USA is a democracy. It is not...yet.

The United States as established is a federal republic...the rule of law, not a democracy which is the rule by a majority.

Here is a nice video to explain the difference.

Thank you and goodnight.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Sorry to interrupt, but the English Nazi in me demands that I correct those of you who believe that the USA is a democracy. It is not...yet.

The United States as established is a federal republic...the rule of law, not a democracy which is the rule by a majority.

Here is a nice video to explain the difference.

Thank you and goodnight.

You be highly mistaken if you believed that any of us don't know what we formed and why we dumped you.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I think you only got to 9 on the condescending meter there UG. Have another go and see if you can do better. lol

Seriously though, sugarpop has a good point, and unlike yourself, I happen to agree that it's not the US's job to 'police' the world.

It's rather sad that in some conflicts the US has chosen to inject themselves, yet in others they choose not to. I wonder what they criteria is for the US to stand up for democracy and shout/shoot down genocide and so called oligarchies? Would you care to tell me why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda and continues not to depose Mugabe? Surely those genocides are equal to anything Hussein ever committed?

Because, it wouldn't be profitable for corproate America. We are so self-righteous, but if another country acted the same way we do, we would be all like, how dare they. They must be destroyed.

Our going around trying to "spread democracy" is no different from what Russia did, or Germany. And the truth is, if a country IS democratic, but unfriendly to our government or corporate America, we fund coups and install dictators. Hey, as long as they give us what we want. Only in the end, these things always come back and bite us in the ass, which is exactly what happened with Saddam Hussien, and also Osama bin Laden.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And are not these all unconscionable offenses? Are these not the great sources of mankind's misery? Do they not stink in the nostrils of God and man? I say they are and they do. It's because I'm a human being. It's because I appreciate governance that is moral, rather than Orwellian.

You?

Yes, they do, and we should act on behalf of those people. But not with war, and not under US military control. There are other ways. If there needs to be military action, it should be done by NATO, with cooperation of the world and the UN.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by BrianR

Sorry to interrupt, but the English Nazi in me demands that I correct those of you who believe that the USA is a democracy. It is not...yet.

The United States as established is a federal republic...the rule of law, not a democracy which is the rule by a majority.

Here is a nice video to explain the difference.

Thank you and goodnight.

yea yea, I know. But we have this need to spread democracy, because we are supposedly a democratic people.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why is it OUR JOB to police the world? What if the world doesn't want us policing it?

Then I'd have to agree with Radar.

So let me get this straight, you think that the United States has the right to go into any sovereign country that is not a democracy, and take over, so we can spread democracy? That is not very democratic.

Nope, thats not what I'm saying, not by a long shot.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Nope, thats not what I'm saying, not by a long shot.

Please elaborate then. I'm interested in your opinion.