Should the US intervene to promote democracy? (Page 3)

FogofWar: "point 3) Done. The US/any one country will not be the ones chosen to intervene to promote Democracy."

You are still missing the point. It is not about any ONE specific nation intervening. It is about the objective of a nation intervening.

Comrade_: You are either really bad at English or you are trying to pull at nothing.
I explained why I mentioned the word "UN" several times. You seem intent on thinking that I said the UN to take the lead in this, instead of looking at what I really said which is "If an organisation, such as the UN for example, were given the power to "promote" democracy then it will be more accepted as being an organisation without a Political agenda."

Let me put it to you simplier:

If an idiot, such as Fog for example, were to understand basic English then the world would be a better place.

If an idiot - If an organisation
such as Fog for example - such as the UN for example.

means the UN is an example of the organisation I have in mind, in terms of structure as Fog is an example of the idiot I have in mind, in terms of not understanding basic English.
*******-*******-*******-*******------
" You are still missing the point. It is not about any ONE specific nation intervening. It is about the objective of a nation intervening."

No, you are missing the point. You never explained anything in your initial post all you stated was you got this topic from another site and the topic is "Should the US intervene to promote democracy". I took it based on what you posted. Now if you want to change the topic then it is tedious to debate 'the objective of a nation intervening', which has very little to do with the topic.

Comrade_: The global economy. In other words; everyone."

-No. This is not guaranteed, The global economy is falling apart and it has nothing to do with non-democratic governments."

Again, if you would like to tell Dr. Mark Peceny that he is wrong; feel free. His email and phone number are in the link provided:

-So, I can say that the falling economy of Greece has to do with non-democratic governments, the debt the US owes has to do with non-democratic government (haaha ironically, yes, but not in the say way, it does owe China a debt), is the current economic crisis have anything to do with non-democratic governments??. Fog, you made the statement, why can't you answer with common sense?

Comrade_: I see, you only copy & paste other people's ideas and none of your own. Is this why you can't debate properly on the thread? and instead have to switch the topic. Ah, I see.
And by the way I think Yen meant more than why democracy is the best form of government and more on why it is the suitable form of government for country's culture. To me it is the better structure of government, but whether it is suitable for everyone. I mean this not as a hit against democracy and what it means as a word but more on being practical for other cultures. We also need to keep this in mind.
Democracy is a form of Government, implementing it in other countries by force will not get rid of Gender-inequalities or automatically changed that country's beliefs. You can't force something, we change by understanding.
But when lives are at risk, such as pro-democratic protesting (which starts due to poverty, oppression, hunger and inequality) being stopped by violent measures by that government, it is only then that " forced intervention" should be justified.

Practical thinking vs wishful thinking.

Pretty Smurfet: Bombing someone into submission is wrong.....No-one's allowed to beat someone up until they see their point of view....Maybe if they offered a successful society they would join willingly.....Instead of the mess they're offering.....!!!!!!....It's not a democracy anyway.....The world runs the way the Americans want it to run anyway.....It doesn't matter what we say......F@#k democracy.....

Yan26: Ok after the clarification I see the answers on two basis Moral or Realpolitik.

Morally : The US would not be justified in intervening to establish democracy . Because I believe in most cases people deserve the government they get. When I see history I see that once a society becomes mature enough to understand about fundamental freedom , civil liberties and stuff it is very difficult to subjugate the people. They automatically participate in whichever form of government they have to win themselves certain inalienable rights. For democracy to work people have to have a particular mindset. Forcing a society to accept democracy when it is not prepared for it yet is wrong.

Realpolitik : Intervening in a country uses up a lot of resources. Using democracy as an excuse to intervene while the real intention is pure profit is smart. Doing it for any reason other than for benefit of the US would be unsmart.

PS: Fog - I dont agree with your views on democracy. But since that is not the question you asked I will leave that argument for another day.

FogofWar: "You are either really bad at English or you are trying to pull at nothing."

This coming from the one who is intent on telling others what they said by using words that were not used.

I understand what you point is; however; the UN is a poor example of such an organization. They are NOT democratic by any means. They are NOT neutral by any means. They are NOT intent on helping in any form. They ARE corrupt, biased, politically motivated; and easily bribed. The UN is a poor example. I get what you are trying to say; and it fits well with this topic; but not with the UN.


"means the UN is an example of the organisation I have in mind, in terms of structure"

In terms of structure; the UN operates in exactly the opposite method in which you want. Hence it is a poor choice. Your idea is correct; but your example is poor; that's all.

"I took it based on what you posted."

…and I corrected your mistaken intent on the interpretation of it; but you still seem intent on telling me what I said by adding in words that I never said. Listen to the topic; for what it is; not what you see.

"Now if you want to change the topic then it is tedious to debate 'the objective of a nation intervening', which has very little to do with the topic."

I haven't changed the topic; you are trying to. Intervening is the topic; so it has everything to do with it. Again; look at the topic for what it is, not what you want it to be.

I never made any statement that democracy cannot have economic downfalls. You clearly cannot comprehend anything. There is no point trying to explain it to you. How about you ask Dr. Peceny when you tell him how wrong he is by your logic?

"I see, you only copy & paste other people's ideas and none of your own."

Because you clearly do not read any of my posts outside of this one; where I specifically said this was NOT my idea; but one I saw elsewhere.

"Is this why you can't debate properly on the thread?"

Yes posting credible sources to rebut your inaccurate conclusions based on no knowledge to the subject is clearly a demonstration of 'losing' a debate over your method of ignoring answers because it didn't come from the person whom you asked based on their original post; or refusing to read my own ideas because they are far too in depth for your simple logic. If that's you definition of winning; then you sure are a winner.


"and instead have to switch the topic."

The topic is should the US intervene to promote democracy. I have yet to sway from this, unlike you.

Yes, we do keep in mind that democracy may not be favoured by all. No system works perfectly everywhere; hence I addressed that concern for yan.


"You can't force something, we change by understanding."

'change by understanding' is still a form of intervention. Military intervention is only one method of intervention; and force is only one method the military is used for; it just happens to be the main one. Humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan are spearheaded by ISAF forces; and this is intervening. Providing water to Palestinians is a means of the US intervening in that region, not for democracy; but it is a form of intervention. There are many forms of intervention; and all must be considered; not just military force.

Pretty smurfette; the statistics speak otherwise. Of the nations the UN interveneses militarily for the purpose of democracy; 75% have successfully become democracies, according to Dr. Peceny, a professor of Political Science. It seems most are willing to accept their 'mess'.

FogofWar: "Because I believe in most cases people deserve the government they get."

Yan, one must also consider nations like Libya; which are calling for democracy; yet are being bombed and attacked by their government for it. Afghanistan tried to resist Taliban dictatorship; yet could not. In this case; it would be morally wrong to leave the oppressed to suffer death at the hands of a ruthless and merciless overlord of which they do not approve. This topic sure isn't black and white; there are many things one must consider before taking action to intervene; but the topic is just merely a reflection on the method of purpose to such interventions. Should the US be forced to intervene; then I say it should be for the sake of promoting democracy; and not for control in the region.

"When I see history I see that once a society becomes mature enough to understand about fundamental freedom , civil liberties and stuff it is very difficult to subjugate the people. They automatically participate in whichever form of government they have to win themselves certain inalienable rights."

Perhaps you should look deeper into history. If this is the case; then explain why civil war occurs?

"For democracy to work people have to have a particular mindset."

That being a mindset of their own.

"Forcing a society to accept democracy when it is not prepared for it yet is wrong."

Valid point; but can you elaborate on why; instead of just stating your belief? I have shown statistics which provide a clear analysis of why the US SHOULD intervene. I would like to see the statistics as to why they should not.

"Using democracy as an excuse to intervene while the real intention is pure profit is smart. Doing it for any reason other than for benefit of the US would be unsmart."

This does not mean that the intent is not to liberate. You don't think Tylonol makes its medication for the sake of profit? Does this mean they are not helping you? You don't think doctors perform health care for the sake of profit? Does this mean they are not helping you? Does any of this mean they do not want to help you?

Think about it this way: if a doctor continually practiced free health care; performing operations that cost into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, from his own pocket…how long would he continue practicing for until he was broke and unable to?

It is ironic how the world can hold a double standard to those who rule over them based solely on the jealousy of it.

"but you forgot to include deceitful to "while the real intention is pure profit is smart""

Colon; let's see the statistical facts that back up your statement? If you are not going to post anything relevant to a single topic on this forum; why post at all?

Comrade_: FogOfWar states: -"Of the nations the UN interveneses militarily for the purpose of democracy; 75% have successfully become democracies".

...so funny that through out this thread you've bashed the UN now you're using the UN as your example for success?


I see this Debate is a waste. You should look at the corruption in African "democratic" countries for yourself. Uganda, a "democratic" country pass of a bill that will promote Homophobia. or better yet why not look at the "democratic" example of the US president and how well he tried to get congressional authorization for the Libya operation.

Look at the US attempts to stabilized Afghanistan & Iraq. Look at the lack of MONEY the US has to spend on "intervention" to "promote" democracy.

All the "SUCCESS". You've neglected all the meaningful points in this debate and continue to pull at nothing.

And btw David you should read up on the fight of the people of Egypt & Syria. You'd understand the differences in Egypt, Syria & Libya (I don't want you to get their revolutions mixed up)

Here is some fun facts for you all:
"The Gallup poll found that 75 percent of Egyptians oppose U.S. aid to political groups, and 68 percent think the United States will try to exert direct influence over Egypt's political future. Two-thirds of Egyptians disagreed that the United States is serious about encouraging democracy in the Middle East and North Africa, according to Gallup, perhaps an indication of public frustration over the U.S. government's perceived muted or belated support for Arab Spring uprisings."

Should the US be given permission to "intervene" to "promote" "democracy"? -to answer that you need to see things realistically, keeping in mind these country's cultures & what "democracy" means and I mean this is a solid sense, not a blind patriot sense. Less this will turn into another "Crusade".

The debate is a waste, and I'm in no mood for bs & long political-type speeches by Fog.

Laterz.

FogofWar: I do apologize caveman. That was a typo on my behalf. It is the US; not the UN.

The statement is supposed to read:

Of the nations the US intervenes militarily for the purpose of democracy; 75% have successfully become democracies.


This debate is not claiming democracy is perfect now is it caveman?

Again; I strongly urge you to seek an education before you go down the road of Afghanistan and Iraq pal. I would hate for this to turn into another Hiroshima and Nagasaki debate; where you resort to ignoring it and walking away after getting upset that everyone else proves you wrong.

And one must wonder of the 75% of Egyptians mentioned; how many have set foot on American soil to know what American policy is that they bash. I mean; it's not like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood likes to spread propaganda or anything? Isn't that right Hamas? al Qaeda? Hezbollah? PFLP? Shall we go on?

"The debate is a waste, and I'm in no mood for bs & long political-type speeches by Fog."

Ironic that this is how every single one of your 'debates' ends when presented with hard facts to counter what you say.

Comrade_: Ey, whatever makes you feel better about your small pene Fog, but as for me I'm personally tired of running in circles, I can't make you any smarter. You must travel that journey on your own little one.
Now carry on to your long rants and empty raves, you're deserving of the "Ignore".

Outbackjack: The U.S promote democracy?????

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!

Yan26: Fog - I purposely split my answer into two parts. The part under Realpolitik does not take into consideration any moral or ethical question. So you do not need to defend the action I have given there under moral ground.

Yes a situation like Libya would be an exception.But I think it would still be required to assessed on a case by case method.


With regards to your question why civil wars occur.
If you look at some of the more famous ones in history the French one, the Russian one, the Chinese one they all involved people participating in the movements. This would be " They automatically participate in whichever form of government they have to win themselves certain inalienable rights." Participating would involve changing the system of governance too. In none of these cases was a foreign intervention required. So a civil war actually does not contradict me.



"Forcing a society to accept democracy when it is not prepared for it yet is wrong."

In Rwanda for eg: First there was a tribal form of government with no Hutu or Tutsi. Next after being colonized there was a feudal form of government in which the Tutsi dominated the Hutu. So finally when the country was granted independence under a democratic system it collapsed. why? Because the people had too much hatred for each other to be able to work in such a system. This is what I meant . The people were not yet ready for democracy. They didnt have the mindset required to make democracy a success.This is not meant to discuss the genocide.It is simply meant to highlight that at that point given those peoples history and mindset they were not prepared for democracy.
Similar situation have been there elsewhere in Africa too.
This is my point. Any form of government( democracy or others) require the population to have a certain mentality/maturity to succeed. If a society is not prepared for the transition to democracy it wont work anyway.
So by intervening and imposing democracy you would prevent the society from maturing on their own and you would put a form of government which would add to the problem.
Rather than focus on democracy the focus should be on a sustainable form of government for that region.

davidk14: .

Yan said: Because the people had too much hatred for each other to be able to work in such a system….They didn’t have the mindset required to make democracy a success.

David responds: So…In some instances, racism and hatred for one another are better than democracy where freedom and liberty are the foundation? Perhaps I do not understand your post?

.

FogofWar: "If you look at some of the more famous ones in history the French one, the Russian one, the Chinese one they all involved people participating in the movements."

I understand your point yan; what I am asking is what about the nations which cannot get involved in such movements? Look at Iran; Syria, Libya. etc. They are trying to get involved; yet they get slaughtered for doing so. Many people live in oppression and are unable to overcome it. This is a fact of life. Not everyone gets the opportunity to live under the government they want…and in many cases; it is because the government is too powerful and controlling. Look at the Taliban for example.

Rwanda was a mess; and it wasn't just because of the ethnic disputes. Rwanda was a mess the UN intentionally let happen. This was not intervening; it was taking away one sides ability to defend themselves; then standing there and watching them get hacked apart. The UN failed in Rwanda; not democracy.

Although you are right on any government requiring a level of mentality and maturity to succeed. Many places are not so; and the US also suffers from this; as do many in Canada.

"If a society is not prepared for the transition to democracy it wont work anyway."

I agree; but this is what is also meant in intervening for democracy. If the goal is democracy; then the intervention is to ease such a transition at the rate required. Such intervention does not necessarily mean forcing it upon people.

Yan26: David - You misunderstood me. The point was sometimes democracy is not the ideal solution.
Fog -
I have already stated in my previous post "Yes a situation like Libya would be an exception.But I think it would still be required to assessed on a case by case method."

"If the goal is democracy; then the intervention is to ease such a transition at the rate required. Such intervention does not necessarily mean forcing it upon people. "
You realize this may involve a timeline and an effort that the US may not be able to/willing to bear. Do you think it is practically possible?

Also I had earlier asked you if the US should intervene in a mismanaged democracy like Greece to which you responded yes.
So does this mean recently during the sub-prime crisis the other countries would be perfectly justified in "intervening" in the US?

Also what are the methods broadly speaking that fall within intervention economic , military ,cultural(read propaganda) or diplomatic or all of them?

Comrade_: ...I wonder who is arming UNdemocratic governments

FogofWar: That's where things get messy in politics Yan. Things cannot be fairly assessed on a case by case method. If they did, others would see things differently; and then they would blame favouritism. Imagine in a court of law; if two people were being charged for the same offence, yet one walks away free while the other gets a 10 year sentence….would that appear fair? Surely if anyone were to look into the reasonings; maybe…but the sad reality is that people don't; they assume they know what is right and don't bother to look into it in more detail. Ask caveman about his opinion of Loya Jirga in Afghanistan and you'll see what I mean.

It often may not be practically possible; but this topic is not about that…and that will depend on circumstances (i.e. how much else the US is currently involved in; and which takes precedence).

"So does this mean recently during the sub-prime crisis the other countries would be perfectly justified in "intervening" in the US?"

Yes. Many did. Recession is not the same as a failing state; so this isn't really a perfect example; but the answer still remains. If the US economy is struggling; then the allies of the US who are promoting democracy also should aid in stabilizing their economy. This intervention isn't military; it's trade. Absolutely should friends trade with each other to promote economic growth when times are needed.

All methods of intervening. This topic does not specify any form in particular.


Caveman; read a book and you'll see.

Comrade_: Fog says: "Things cannot be fairly assessed on a case by case method. If they did, others would see things differently; and then they would blame favouritism. Imagine in a court of law; if two people were being charged for the same offence, yet one walks away free while the other gets a 10 year sentence….would that appear fair?"

-What another bullshittery courtesy Fog. It has happen, no need to "Imagine" and it isn't called "favourtism" it is actually received as justice, one simple example, one may have committed a prior offense, and the other did not. One may be innocent, the other isn't...the list goes on. One had no evidence, the other had. But the point each IS done by "a case by case" method...maybe you'd want to read up and get a better example?
..'they assume they know what is right and don't bother to look into it in more detail.'
hmm seems fitting.

We all know the answers Fog, now this winking problem you seem to have, is something in your eye? or is that a nervous reaction?

Comrade_: hmm why is it that on one hand the US is selling arms & provide grants to NONdemocratic countries while on the other hand it will seek to "promote democracy by intervening"?
Keeping in mind that 'intervening' may also have to turn into military intervention.

hmm I saw Egypt on the offical list too, along with other non-democratic countries.


"Conflict of interest" comes to mind.


Reality vs Wishful thinking.

FogofWar: Reality vs. NO thinking again from caveman.

Comrade_: ..you made no sense, but ey whatever makes you feel comfortable by avoiding my statement ey buddy.

FogofWar: I didn't 'avoid' your statement. Your statement is not exactly true first off; and secondly; and most importantly; it does not pertain to the topic; as the topic is SHOULD the US intervene to promote democracy; not HOW is the US intervening in real life.

Comrade_: My statement isn't true? I know my statements are true, and it is open in the US defense website.
The question is should the US intervene to promote democracy, how can it be allowed to 'promote' democracy when it has issues of it's own such as aiding in arming undemocratic countries?

...NVM, this little debate is just strolling and you don't seem to take criticism as a good thing.