Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (43469)	9/12/2002 12:36:47 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In my opinion, it is much better to simply recognize and make clear that we're promoting our own security interests. Otherwise, we will be setting ourselves up for another failure when imposed democracy fails. Well said. There are many of us here who are very realistic about the capabilities and limitations of military intervention. There is an appropriate time and place for such action and when the reasons are obscured by political expediency and self-righteous delusion, we lose sight of our underlying commitment to act in this nation's best interests.

To: carranza2 who wrote (43469)	9/12/2002 1:47:18 PM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think Bush was talking about imposing democracy, but facilitating via the UN. I agree that US security interests should be primary, and am pessimistic about any elections in, say, Iraq, over the short term, given their lack of experience with democracy and their tribalistic history. A big part of the problem is the lack of anyone's true identity with the artificial construct called Iraq. (same with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.) When push comes to shove people will identify themselves with their old tribe or clan, and seek to impose their will on the others, not negotiate a "win-win" solution, or compromise so that everyone gets something. Same thing happened in the old Yugoslavia after Tito's death - all the old submerged conflicts came to the fore - did anyone really think of themselves as Yugoslavian? - no, you were a Serb, a Croat, whatever. I have been thinking of doing some research into the origins of the post-WWI redrawing of borders in Central Europe and the Middle East. Whoever did that has a lot to answer for - only the Czech Republic and Slovakia managed to separate in a civilized fashion.

To: carranza2 who wrote (43469)	9/14/2002 12:57:33 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Some cultures and some countries are simply not ready for Western-style democracy, and perhaps may never be. It is fatuous, in my view, to impose democracy where it is not wanted and where it may be a failure. I simply don't agree with this claim, carranza. If ever there was a culture and nation that seemed to be not ready and incapable of Western style democracy, it would have been Japan. A nation which had been a military dictorship with a divine, infallible Emperor for centuries, in a society of inflexible castes unquestionably subordinated to a warrior elite. There had never been democracy in Japan, and there most certainly had never been anything close to a "popular will." Unless that was demonstrated in the will of the Emperor or Shogun. And yet today, we would not doubt Japan's dedication to republicanism. The Arabs, on the other hand, share a great deal of our history and traditions and myths. Derek