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: LindyBill who wrote (68873)	1/26/2003 11:05:38 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I am sure you will read and enjoy Friedman's column today on what we may face in "Nation Building" Iraq. If we do, we will spend a good bit of time here discussing it, I think. We definitely should, imo. To the credit of the neocons and their supposed source in Woodrow Wilson, this issue will be very much on the table. It harks back to some discussions we had about Robert Kaplan's arguments. He argued that benevolent dictatorships were a necessity in these conditions. And, I can't recall exactly, some sort of gradual steps into democracy. I gather you take point 2, below, from the author. That's the first paragraph of what I'm about to paste. And the second is your comments. Then I'm going to paste a review of a book I'm reading now which addresses precisely these issues though it looks at them through the issues of ethnic politics. That's precisely the issue the Bush administration will face in Iraq. First, here are the relevant bits from your post. 2) Stable democracies do not suddenly appear. They develop. Creation of the social and institutional infrastructure requires time. Moreover, the pattern of development inevitable reflects the distribution of wealth and resources in the society. The wealthy and the educated have better organizational skills and, therefore, political groups tend to emerge first among a small circle of elites. Thus, democracy begins with the rule of a narrow, enlightened elite and a limited participatory franchise. Over time, if the franchise widens, and if constitutional rules limit political power, as in the United States after the American Revolution, democracy takes root and flourishes. Point two is difficult. We tend to want to go immediately to "one man, one vote." However we did write a constitution for Japan that was so damn good they still love it. But the point is, lets not be in too much of a rush to try to turn these Middle East countries into an American suburb. I completely agree. But neither the US history when it comes to these issues nor the brief history of this administration makes one feel comfortable about this. Given that this post is already a bit long, I'll paste the review of the Chua book I'm reading into the next post.

To: LindyBill who wrote (68873)	1/26/2003 11:42:12 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Lindy Bill, sir: What exciting times we live in. Never were a people so well informed, so drawn into political discussions on an hourly basis, with instant communication of events around the world With a little encouragement , you could probably write the most significant or attention getting segment of Mr Bush's speech Felllow Americans ( thats us) The events of 9-11 2001 marked a turning point -a point at which the vulnerability of our country to terrorist actions was eposed -and demands that we recognize that we no longer live in a isolated society- that the peoples of the civilized world, in order to survive , must act in concert to limit the power of terrorist nations and prevent the spread of WMD's The UN was established etc.... but is without the power to enforce ......... etc Without action, are we to cower in our homes, individually unable to respond except with fear to futher Terrorist actions on our homeland? Is this the fearful future that American Veterans,living and dead, who fought in two World Wars envisioned as they willingly risked their lives to save for us survivors? I think not. It is not in the Nature of Freedom loving peoples anywhere to kneel down to tyrants - and make no mistake they have followed their threats with action with indescriminate killing of young and old, rich and poor, colored and white, of all religions in the 9-11 attack. And the threats continue.... ( I will let you polish this off and and draw a logical conclusion ) Regards Sig

To: LindyBill who wrote (68873)	1/26/2003 12:30:04 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Only seven countries in the world today have enjoyed a from of representative democracy for more than 100 years and five of them speak English. They are: Great Briton, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, and France Ahem, the Brits speak English, the US speaks American, and I heard somewhere that the Canadians speak French. BTW, today is India's 54th anniversary as a republic. news.bbc.co.uk

To: LindyBill who wrote (68873)	1/26/2003 3:56:30 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Point two is difficult. We tend to want to go immediately to "one man, one vote." However we did write a constitution for Japan that was so damn good they still love it. But the point is, lets not be in too much of a rush to try to turn these Middle East countries into an American suburb. Nice post. Intriguing.

To: LindyBill who wrote (68873)	1/26/2003 4:27:23 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

But the point is, lets not be in too much of a rush to try to turn these Middle East countries into an American suburb. I have moderated my position on this issue recently after being humbled by Steven Rogers. Our primary goal should not be to install an 'American style democracy' in fact but instead to instill an 'Arab style democracy' as a possibility. Also, I think that we should define 'not getting worse' as real progress. The Middle East doesn't need to be told how to govern itself but it does need a moment of stability to begin imagining a different future. Paul