Thursday, March 09, 2006

Buldozing over with democracy

The idea that the Bush administration cannot teach us that democracy cannot be forced on anyone is completely assanine. This is exactly what this administration has attempted to do: to shove democracy down the throats of nations who have not established themselves as democracies. I don't understand when the United States decided that it had the right to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations, by entering uncharted territories, and wiping anyone who disagreed with non-democratic ideas. Who was the United States to chastize communism during the 80s? While I don't agree with Communism myself, I do not think that the United States had the right to just go after any country which adopted a Communist stance on an issue. The mere idea that democracy could be forced on anyone is an oxymoron in itself, as democracy must be wanted by the people, not forced on them. One cannot pick up a cookie-cutter idea of what democracy is, and simply just stick it onto a country such as Iraq, expecting for everything to fall into place, and for the little cracks to fit together. This is not how things work, and I think that the mere idea of forcing democracy on someone else goes completely against every tenet of democracy.

6 comments:

MadMax said...

I hope that you spent your Spring break taking a course on American history. If not allow me to educate you. It is up to all Americans to spread the ideals of democracy. This is rooted in our country’s history and tradition. It is part of the Jeffersonian desire to spread to the whole world the American form of republican self-government. This is because there are no other people on the face of the earth who have the same zeal for democracy than Americans. We are in fact willing to lay down our own lives and those of our children to ensure personal liberties.
Others enjoy the same freedoms but are unwilling to help Washington in this task, like the selfish Europeans. We helped them in wars past but now they turn their backs when asked to do the same. They don’t get it and never will. Could it be that they know they have the United States to protect them should their own freedoms be in jeopardy?
I was thinking about your statement about forcing democracy on people. I’m sure that you saw the news about the Iraqi elections. In you opinion did any of those people who had purple ink on their fingers seem forced into voting? Absolutely not, these were people who for the first time had hope in their future. Belief in a government that every individual had a say in, and faith in the ideals of democracy.

stacy h said...

I think both opinions that have been mentioned can hold their own weight. I think the main issue is that other countries expect the U.S. to make a difference, but when the U.S. takes action, they get upset. I read about calls from others for the U.S. to step up and help (take the tsunami or other instances in Africa), and when the U.S. doesn't, it is criticized for it's lack of compassion and values. However, there are instances when the U.S. tries to help, but it is criticized for doing so. I think based on those instances, it is diffcult to expect a single method of action from the U.S.. How can those conflicting views ever become a compromise?

Belma said...

I hope that your Spring Break was spent taking a course in American history as well, because I think it is absolutely assanine to use a man like Jefferson (who slept with his slaves) as an icon of American democracy. If America is going to choose to spread its views of democracy throughout the entire world, then it should not do so forcibly, which involve actions such as lying about the existence of nuclear weapons. The United States was built on slavery, and the murder of innocent people, so seriously do NOT sit there and lecture me on taking a history lesson.
There is a huge difference between asking the entire world (including the United States) for help in a humanitarian disaster such as a tsunami, and having the most powerful country in the world invade a small country that has done nothing to hurt that big country. Strangely enough, madmax, you say that it is America's responsibility to spread democracy...okay, so I guess America should invade China then? Why doesn't the United States invade China, and spread democracy to a nation that has been accused of numerous human rights abuses? America's reason for going to Iraq was pure and simple: oil. It has nothing to do with democracy, and you can use your purple ink example all you want, because democracy involves a lot more than voting. We can cast a vote in our own country, yet PLENTY of people would agree that we do not live in a democracy (especially not during the time of this administration), so please shut up about the purple thumbs.
On a closing note, madmax, I think that you are ridiculous. I think that you are ignorant, inhumane, sick, and your views disgust me. Your views represent the downfall of this country, and your opinions are built around shutting out people, and discriminating against the American way of life, which affords freedom of speech to ALL people, and not just those who agree with you, and hold your views. Who are you to say that we are laying down our own lives and the lives of our children to ensure personal liberties, when we have begun restricting personal liberties in OUR OWN country, via venues such as the Patriot Act. Who is the United Stats to preach about personal liberties to the rest of the world, when it has done nothing but restrict the personal liberties of its own citizens? There are no other nations on this planet who have the same zeal for democracy, you say, as the United States? No, there are no other nations who are ready to ENFORCE and KILL innocent people in the same of a system of government which they believe to be superior over other forms of government.
To close, YOU MAKE ME SICK.

Noor M said...

To Madmax:
The fact that there is such a heavy American influence in the Iraqi oil ministry, the fact that the contracts for oil were made availible only to American companies after the invasion of Iraq, and the fact America now controls how much oil China and Russia can buy from Iraq completely undermine any claim that the Bush administration makes about spreading democracy in Iraq. Firstly, this is an abonimable act that has set a very dangerous precedent in the history of the world. Secondly, the hypocracy of the Bush administration is disgusting. Where was the United States when Rwanda happened? Why the hell are you not in Sudan? Those people are screaming and begging for democracy. The Bush administration insults my intelligence when they cover grave crimes with feeble, half-hearted lies. Mysterious disappearances, black sites, extraordinary rendition are the trademarks of a cruel dictatorship. Yet all of them are happening in present day America (land of the free) and the administration doesn't even need to make excuses. Sadly, there is no accountability for their actions.
Madmax, you are either naive to believe that the Bush administration wants to promote democracy in Iraq or so blindly patriotic that you have submitted to the national syndrome of avoiding blame to create selective history (which is common in many other countries as well). Either way, you need to know that the driving force behind most international events is money/profit. If the United States was on a democracy mission, I believe there were more deserving candidates in Iraq. I believe, there were countries and populations asking the United States to step in. The Iraqis did not ask the US to step in. You talk about the turnout at Iraqi elections, what choice did the US leave those people? After the US bombarded their country and killed civilians without thought, did the citizens of Iraq have other options besides agree with the most powerful nation in the world? Put yourself in their positions, Saddam was a cruel dictator no doubt, but today they feel unsafe in their own homes. And how will they feel 20 years from now, when US oil companies have sucked all the resources out of Iraq? Will they be glad for democracy, or bitter and vengeful?

MadMax said...

Belma……

I have a very hard time grasping the idea that you are a college student. There is no question that standards were lowered to accommodate your enrollment. You really do know little about American history and are too obtuse to gather information before writing your poison pen blog. You talk about our country being built on slavery, but did you know that slavery was started in this country by the British, King George to be exact. Thomas Jefferson made it a point to strike a commendation for this in the Declaration of Independence. What’s really galling is that you tend to forget that just about every country in the world has practiced slavery for thousands of years and in the United States for what amounts to a blink of any eye. In fact the state of Vermont was the first to abolish slavery there in 1777.
The rest of your comments are rambling, uneducated and unfortunately unremarkable. With the exception of the new word that you seem to have come across, that word is assanine. You seem to like using this word but sadly you are not spelling it correctly. The correct spelling is asinine. Pity.

Belma said...

Pity? Awwww, that's cute Madmax, but I have no doubt that standards were lowered when you were made a part of the human race. God must have known you were going to be a waste of life, who would spend his time spewing out bigotry and hatred, in addition to "converting" gay people back to straighthood through organizations such as Love in Action, so he probably stopped halfway. Did I mention that he stopped your production before giving you tolerance and understanding of diversity?
Now, as far as defending Mr. Thomas Jefferson, and talking about him adding in his two cents about the abolition of slavery during the writing of the Constitution, I do have a question: did he do this before or after he slept with his slaves?
Now, on to spelling? I could educated you on the placement of commas and sentence structure (which you know nothing about, by the way), but why bother? Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, you focus on a spelling mistake? Why? Because you have no credible response to the discussion at hand, so you decide tododge the process of actually answering a question, and stating an opinion. You're a waste of life, a waste of space, and every second that I spend attempting an educated dialogue with you will be yet another second of my life that I have wasted on a useless human being.