How's Iraq These Days?

Great Debates
41

I never said **the US ** put democracy in these countries by gunpoint. However, without “gunpoint” these countries would not be enjoying the type of democracy they enjoy today. Or do you suggest that without suffering Allied defeat that Germany and Japan would have somehow decided to reform to their present states of governing?

They will soon enough – and they are certianly better off already now that the Taliban has been defeated.

I am sorry that you are unable to recall but American slaves were not able to participte in American democracy until Union forces “by gunpoint” forced thier captors to allow them to do so. Rashak Mani’s post which I criticize suggests that unless a people fight for democracy themselves then they don’t deserve to have it. So I guess American slaves didn’t deserve democracy since they had to rely upon someone else (the U.S. military) to win it for them.

If that isn’t what RM was suggesting then what? If you say that the civil war was ok because the slaves wanted democratic freedom then do you suggest that Iraqi’s don’t want democratic freedom? And if you argue on human rights issues then good luck in supporting Hussein’s human rights record.

42

I’m sorry Zagadka - you are suggesting that Democracy is responsible for the state of these nations? Interesting.

43

No, I’m suggesting that the United States’ expert nation building powers that be are.

44

Are you insane? Maybe you need to pay more attention to current events

45

If that is the case then you have just made a point in favor of the Iraqi war and occupation. Comparing my list and your list of countries shows that when the US is willing to go into direct military conflict, stay the course with a temporary occupation, spend billions of dollars on reconstruction, and guide the reconstitution of the occupied government then that nation ends up becoming a stable and exemplary democracy, a becon in their region.

However, when the US decides instead to negociate with despots, tuck tail after a defeat in battle, fight by proxy through other nation’s armies, fund resistance movements instead of getting directly involved, fail to provide adequate funding for reconstrction, fail to guide developing governments, or ignore the despicable actions of rougue nations for political purposes then the nations in question end up even worse off then they were before.

46

About the democracy, who did “put into place at gun point” in these places.

This is some more confused history.

Myth #9: After the Civil War all black men had the right to vote.

Also, you’re very confused if you think that Americans blacks didn’t play a very signifigant part in their struggle for the right to vote.

That’s not what RM said. He was questionig how “democratic” it is to force a type of governance on an unwilling nation.

This is just another, “What the Fuck?”
What the fuck does “the civil war was ok” have to do with “Hussein’s human rights record.”

47

Just out of idle curiosity, what role, if any, do you think that the idiosyncratic geographic, geopolitical, cultural, and historical conditions of a country play in the success of a democratic governemnt?
Or is the relative involvement of the US the only relevant factor in these situations?

Who brought up Pakistan and Uzbekistan? :confused: :confused:

48

Germany and Japan = The Western Allies.

Panama = The US

Costa Rica = Don Pepe Ferrer and the New Junta

Afganistan = The US and allies

Are you seriously trying to argue that Union victory in the Civil War didn’t lead to the abolition of slavery and the passing of the fifteeth amendment? If you are than you are an idiot (literally). I never argued that the situation for African-Americans was ideal in the decades following the Civil War, but it got better beginning with abolition, then the passing of the XV amendment and then with every advance in the Civil Rights movement that came. None of those things would have happened if the Union had’t defeated the Confederacy and forced them to comply with civilisation. Please explain if you think otherwise. So about your link – did every African-american eventully get the right to vote in the US? Yes. Would that have happened if the South had won? No.

I never said they didn’t. They did not however lead the war that lead to their initial freedom. I also wouldn’t suggest that the Iraqis aren’t playing a signifigant role in their struggle for freedom.

Is Iraq an unwilling nation? What percentage of the population would have to oppose democracy in order for you to consider them unwilling to be governed by an open democracy? Was Japan then an unwilling nation? Should we have let them be after WWII then?

Try to concentrate and link more than one idea together at a time. This is why we write in paragraphs. Here is the original paragraph:

This paragraph questions the logic behind RM’s statement. The first sentence should make that clear. The second and thrid sentences explore two different hypothetical lines of reasoning that RM might have been using. Thus the use of the word “IF” at the beginning of each sentence. So restated the argument goes like this:

RM says that forcing democracy (by war) upon cultures that don’t want it is wrong. HumptysHamole says, then what about the American Civil War? The South didn’t want open democracy so by RM’s logic we shouldn’t have fought it. Then HH goes further in anticipating possible responses by RM (or anyone else). HH first figures that RM migt respond by saying that the American slaves wanted democratic freedom and that was what justified the forcing of democracy upon a culture that didn’t want it. So HH asks if the Iraqis also might want democratic freedom like the American slaves did.

Then HH figures that RM (or anyone else) might respond that the brutality and human rights abuses of American slavery justified the forcing of democracy upon a culture that didn’t want it. So HH asks if the brutality and human rights abuses in Saddam’s Iraq might be comparable to those in the Pre-war South.

So, in conclusion, RM had argued that it is wrong to force democracy on an unwilling culture. I gave an example (the American Civil War/Defeat of the Confederacy) that I believe shows that belief to be false. Then I went on to argue against the anticipated responses that RM (or someone else) might use to show how the situation of the American Slaves and of today’s Iraqis is so fundamentally different as to not warrent my comparing them. Understand?

49

Just out of idle curiosity, what role, if any, do you think that the idiosyncratic geographic, geopolitical, cultural, and historical conditions of a country play in the success of a democratic governemnt?

Very little. Cases in point: Japan, Turkey, Russia, Costa Rica, South Africa, Indonesia, Europe, North America. Successful open democracy has shown itself to be amenable to an incredibly wide array of nations with vastly different geographic, geopolitical, cultural, and historical conditions, in spite of what racists, nationalists, and elitists would like to believe. Are all these democracies perfect? No. Are they just like the U.S. style of democracy? No, and we shouldn’t expect them to be, but they are truly democratic, and the people of these nations regularly get to have say in how their government treats them. Shoudn’t the Iraqis have the same opportunity?

No. The most relevant factors in stabilizing a democracy are non-corrupt leadership in the early years of development, long-term economic success, and across the board quality-of-life improvement for the citizens.

50

What exactly is a literal idiot?
There is The Pit if you’re overwhelmed by urges to call names.

You said:
“…post…suggests that unless a people fight for democracy themselves then they don’t deserve to have it. So… American slaves didn’t deserve democracy since they had to rely upon someone else (the U.S. military) to win it for them.”

You didn’t mention nothin bout no leading anything.
The operative phrases are “unless a people fight for democracy themselves” and “So… American slaves didn’t deserve.” Missing here is the part that connects the two. Why don’t American slaves deserve democracy? The answers in this phrase “unless a people fight for democracy themselves.” If they had fought for democracy for themselves, then they would deserve democracy. Since you instead chose to say “So… American slaves didn’t deserve democracy…” this means that you’re finishing the syllogism that includes, “blacks didn’t fight for democracy.”

It sounds like you meant to say this
“Rashak Mani’s post, which I criticize, suggests that unless a people lead the war that leads to their initial freedom, then they don’t deserve to have it.”

First off, I was clarifying RM’s post, not my own.

Second, I’d say that a signifigant number of Iraqis who are willing to live under a democratic government are unwilling to have it imposed on them.

These’re two seperate things. That’s kind of what RM’s getting at. There’s a difference between democracy and having a governement thrust upon a nation by an outside force.

Japan’s case is markedly different in a number of fundamental ways that render it a less than apt historical analogy for this instance.

Is there some “very good reason” why you’re not trying this in The Pit?

Actually, iteh first sentence really doesn’t address much of anything related to RM’s logic.
“If that isn’t what RM was suggesting then what?” is really just a declaration that you don’t think that RM’s “suggesting” something other than what you’re saying he does.
This is not the same as questioning RM’s logic.

However, even though you’ve stated that you don’t think that RM’s “suggesting” something other than what you’re saying he does, it turns out that that RM’s “suggesting” something other than what you’re saying he does.

Given that you’ve started from a mistaken premise about what RM was “suggesting,” it doesn’t seem that your “hypothetical lines of reasoning” are likely to be very relevant to RM’s actual “line of reasoning.”

This beginning is where things started going awry.

Do you think that the idiosyncratic geographic, geopolitical, cultural, and historical conditions of a country play a role in obtaining “non-corrupt leadership in the early years of development, long-term economic success, and across the board quality-of-life improvement for the citizens?”

51 
 Your assuming Iraq is already a democracy then ? When you say "stabilizing a democracy".  I don't think its a democracy yet... though it does need stabilizing. The same stabilizing that US troops presence and heavy handed approach seems to be going against.

Also your example of democracy being forced upon the Confederate US... I thought they were a democracy. They just didn't want to be joined with their northern "cousins" democracy. Slavery and democracy aren't exclusive. See Greece and UK.

 You might have a point in that forcing democracy upon others has worked before... but Germany and Japan up to a point were ordered societies with power sharing up to a point. Germany was democratic too before. Afghanistan is a tribal confederacy... not a democracy. Panama was a corrupt democracy before drugs got it into Noriega. Most South American countries at some point were rotten due to US or/and Drug Traffic influence so they are never good examples.

 So my point being... your examples aren't good ones for showing that force fed democracy has worked before... not in the Iraq example that never was democratic or close to it. Then if you consider decades under Saddam and Anti-American feelings of arabs its too much going against it. (Naturally UN involvement and of other Arab states might have given it a chance... but its too late to conjecture).
52

Still wondering, “What exactly is a literal idiot?”

53

Probably something you’re not allowed to call people in Great Debates anyway, so my advice is, don’t look under that particular rock no more. :slight_smile:

54

The word “idiot” literally means “a person affected with extreme mental retardation” but it is used figuratively to mean “a foolish or stupid person”.

55

Sounds like there’s nothing literary about it.

56

Thanks sailor - and I stand by the statement. If a person really believes that abolition and the passing of the XV amendment were not the result of Union victory in the American Civil War then they are truly ignorant or they are being wantonly foolish and stupid. Since I don’t really believe that you think that, since I believe that you only implied that to be contrary to the point I had made then I didn’t really call you an idiot. Unless you really do believe that – then I did call you an idiot and I apologize only for doing it in the GD forum.

57

No matter how you spin it you are being insulting in GD to SimonX.

58

I agree and I apologize to everybody for doing it in the GD.