...Yeah...no--I'm not buying it.

Our ideology isn't "democracy" any more than the New York Yankees' ideology is "win the World Series."

I mean, isn't that the "ideology" of, well, most of the West and a fair portion of some non-Western states? Seems rather too broad...certainly we've had a good deal of rhetoric about spreading and "making the world safe for" democracy...

But again, that's not exactly unique to America--other nations have done this.

I'd submit that the reason we're bombing them isn't to spread democracy so much as to quell something we dislike, namely, certain regimes and other ideologies.

I must take issue with one other thing, however--

"I'll say it anyway: you want democracy. They don't."

Nonsense. And I know that's a lofty and bold-bordering-on-rash response...but do you honestly think that, say, those living in North Korea don't want a different form of government?

The ones who have been lucky enough to escape would seem to differ.

The numerous demonstrations throughout the Middle East--failed or no--would seem to differ.

I'm not saying that democracy is some sacrosanct idea that all must embrace (though as unpalatable as pushing your beliefs on someone else might be, I do have to say that when faced with a choice between freely-elected government and ruthless autocracies, you're going to find a minority, and an increasingly-small one at that, who'd prefer the latter over the former if given the choice) but the right to self-rule and elementary freedoms which democratic states (generally) allow for is about as close a universal "right" or "desire," I think, as we can come politically.

Someone here might wish to play devil's advocate, but still, I highly doubt that anyone here does not want to live in some form of republic or democracy and would rather live in an autocracy, dictatorship, or something of that nature. Again, I'd submit that's about as close to a universal political constant as you can get. The UN itself looks favorably upon the former and frowns upon states practicing the latter.

I will ask, though--who's "they" in "they don't?"

The regimes?
Probably so--I doubt Kim Jong-Un wants a true democracy.
The everyday people?
May we go out on a limb and say they'd rather, if not necessarily live in a democracy (as if you've lived in a totalitarian state like North Korea your whole life it IS entirely possible that you may be so indoctrinated that you do come to want to be lorded over, though the legitimacy of that position might be undercut by the fact it had to be achieved through state propaganda and often physical or other such means of coercion) then at least live in a state where they're afforded basic democratic freedoms such as the right to freedom of speech, thought and assembly, all of which are strictly controlled or banned in states like North Korea?

To take it another route and to another region--if it's a far-religious-right that mandates the wearing of a niqab (and if a woman wants to wear it freely and of her own volition that's fine, but surely we can agree citing "cultural differences" is not justification for forcing women to cover their face or wear body-length garments if it IS against their will, especially in states where 100-degree heat is commonplace?) or the forced circumcision of clitorises, etc...

Do we really care what "they" (meaning those autocrats in charge) want or don't want? A human rights violation doesn't cease to be so just because a state says it doesn't want to embrace a 21st century morality and would prefer to stay in the 12th century and allow women to be treated accordingly?

(And to be fair, I'd say the same thing of a Christian or Jewish state practicing such things...again, cultural differences and an ancient set of texts doesn't make "honor rape" any less of a horrifying oxymoron--with the emphasis on MORON for anyone who says otherwise--and to defer to what "they want" and allow such a thing to occur is not only hypocritical and indifference to the point of cruelty but pure moral cowardice.)



All that being said--yes, we cannot "bomb them into democracy," as it were, or to borrow the Rousseau, "force them to be free."

THAT being said, however, and keeping in mind just how flawed and corrupt our own democratic/republican states are here in the West, nevertheless I see absolutely no problem taking action against regimes that are tyrannical, oppressive and in cases violent or even genocidal.

While I don't think we had to stay in Iraq as long as we did, and while I would have preferred we went in with an international coalition, nevertheless I don't begrudge Bush's deposing Saddam Hussein. I'm clearly no Bush fan--everyone on this forum can attest to that--but regardless of motive, if he had simply gone in and deposed a man who was responsible for genocidal action against the Kurdish people and WAS a tyrant, and we hadn't stayed for longer than we were involved in WWII...

I daresay I would have thought more highly of the man, and I think a good portion of the nation and international community would have as well.

Call it a flagrant abuse of political power--

I'll take that any day if it means deposing a man who'll allow for the deaths of tens of thousands in genocidal actions without batting an eye.

Gunboat Diplomacy isn't popular (outside our little forum, of course) but Teddy Roosevelt wasn't entirely wrong when he said to "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick."

What use is speaking softly if you don't back it up now and then with the big stick?

Even if you wanted to argue the ends don't justify the means morally...fine.
That's politics.
Immoral actions and dirty hands are a cold hard reality of the business.
I'll take dirty hands and philosophical immorality if it means deposing a leader like Saddam, or stopping a leader like Kim Jong-Un and allowing millions of North Koreans basic human freedoms and dignity (not to mention enough to eat), or ending a regime that allows for any of the mistreatment of women I cited above.

Up above someone said two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe so, but sometimes decisions don't boil down to being either/or and an action can be, in one sense, wrong and another sense right--it may be wrong to play The World Police, but if it means millions of women won't be forcibly circumcised or be raped and then put on trial as if it was their fault or watch their families die just because of an ethnicity...

I repeat, it's sheer moral cowardice, allowing injustices such as those to occur just because you don't want to get your hands dirty.

A democratic state that allows its democratic and humanitarian principles to stop at its border in the name of "cultural differences," oil imports and fear of terrorist reprisals is not a state which is one to be proud of at all.

The New York Yankees don't send drones to their opponents. THAT's the problem. I don't care about what you think about democracy, as long as you don't treat anyone who disagrees hostile. You shouldn't quell what you dislike, simply because you dislike it.

North Koreans: yes, of course a lot of them want a different form of government. You know why? Because the world treats them as hostile until they do. If we wouldn't be waiting to go in whenever we think the amount of casualties of doing so would be reasonable, they wouldn't have to bother about weapons more than about food. That's why communism isn't working: nothing works if there's a huge military force ready to move in. If North Korea were democratic and America would be communist it wouldn't matter. People would still be dying in North Korea. What does matter is the attitude of America. If you just back off with the armies and send in food, money, medicines and what not, we'll be fine. Instead you effectively send them an ultimatum: become democratic or be isolated. And they don't give in. America blames them for that. They are hypocrites for that. All the North Koreans do is being patriots, or nationalists, however you want to call it.

I don't care who's the worst terrorist. I don't care who's to blame the most. I care who can solve it, and won't. That'd be America. As well as North Korea. The difference is that North Korea acts like America would in that situation, and America acts like that's a bad thing.

It is, but who's America to blame them?
Answer: America, which means hostile.

What does that make them?
Answer: Hypocrites.

Exactly how many terrorist organizations spent $1.3 billion in energy and food assistance to their hated enemies? We've been helping them through horrible food shortages as much as their government will allow. Also taking the terrible move of insisting they stop trying to develop the ability to her us with nuclear weapons while we're doing it.

@Steephie22

"If you guys back off with the armies and send food, medicine, supplies, and what not."



In the same time period (1995-present) We've reduced our military presence in South Korea by nearly 25%

Seems like we've doing exactly what you suggest and things aren't just fine.

The us troop presence in South Korea, is 28,500 and has been since 200

In response to this threat the North Korean government maintains a 1,200,000 person standing army. And they maintain a reserve force of over 8 million just in case. They spend 25% of their GDP on their military every year, which it seems like they can afford to do since the USA, PRC, and ROK are trying to feed their people for them.

**since 2007

As much as it may shock Obi wan, I'm. thinking he's right on this issue.

Oh, then I suppose I just don't have my facts very straight then :)

I'd like to point out reducing by 25% doesn't change much though. That sounds more like a cut back in costs.

Also the US isn't everything I assume.

I suppose that makes it less bad, but I still think the North Korean government at least is treated as hostile. On the other hand, North Korea clearly loves to return the favour.

Either way, I was actually talking about the Middle-East when I said "they" a few posts ago. So the governments that are and were in place that the US disagree with.

Even in the worst cases, the guys in charge kept the countries from civil war. A lot of tribes over there hate eachother, and the US is eager to take out the ones who suppress that hate, and, with that, war, so technically keep the peace. In a lot of those countries, freedom just leads to tribal wars. A lot of them.

I'm not saying those regimes are good, but there needs to be taken more care to prevent people from having the freedom to get shot instead of suppressed.

Most suppresed people *get* shot. Usually by a genocidal asshat.

Welcome to the post-modern world.

..."The freedom to get shot instead of suppressed."

O.o

Never since "Cake or Death!" has their been a more dastardly option--

"Freedom to Be Shot or Freedom to Not Have Freedom!"

If most suppressed people got shot, the human population would be a heck of a lot lower than it is.

Never have i seen such an amazing display of failure to connect concepts.

Yes the US commits 'state terrorism'. The use of violence and fear to promot political aims; so that could be to repress the opposition (Taliban) in Afghanistan, and support the government (which they installed) - that is a political end.

They define some groups as 'terrorist' for political reasons and would never include themselves in the list. But definitions of terrorism rely on the willingness to use violence for political, perhaps against civilian targets rather than military targets; but that dividing line becomes unclear when targets aren't wearing uniforms.

The tactics remain the same, willingness to use violence and for states the sponsoring of those who do.

That could include the Sha of Iran in the 50s, or the Egyptian dictators. The Iraqii dictator who was willing to oppose the new Islamic Iran after their revolution, his name escapes me. (just to focus on the middle east)

The US policy since the 50s has been to ensure it's supply of oil, which has involved military aid to dictators who supressed their population and 'kept the peace', which guarenteed the extraction of oil resources (which these countries didn't need for themselves)

This was vital to US foreign policy for the past 60 years, the ability to project military power anywhere in the world and was considered by some to be a necesary evil. It has still resulted in a class of American hating individuals.

Even if the majority of Iranians actually like whatever their government tells them to hate; Iran continues to be one of the most 'Americanized' countries in the region, with plastic surgery being a common 16th birthday present, a very holywood 'tradition'... And one of the most secular, inspite of the government.

But talking to americans on the internet you'd think their government has done no wrong. Great evils with justification. Just as i'm sure the terrorists who attacked the twin towers thought their attack was justified.

There is no simple good vs bad. No monlithic USA/Western powers/free world, who agree on all things. The US government disagrees within itself about the spying program, about the use of drones, about abortion and global warming, and that is without talking what the politicians actually claim they believe in order to get funding for election...

"If most suppressed people got shot, the human population would be a heck of a lot lower than it is. "

You just don't have a fucking clue when it comes to reality. Many oppressive regimes around the world commit genocide. But considering their countries collective populations is smaller than that of the US or China and considering that childbirth is at a greater rate than mortality the world over, we still have population growth. Just cause you say "if they were dead we wouldn't have the population problem" doesn't make it so Ebenezer Scrooge (then let them die and decrease the surplus population). Consider Rwanda. Consider Darfur. Genocides, both. Repression and oppression from a truly evil regime, both. Yet somehow our population continues to grow. I suggest your research the various and sundry despots the world over, both modern and past, both those where the free world intervened and those we ignored. Then think about what you just posted and see the idiocy behind it.

Draug, my point was that China suppresses its people. And, you know, they have a lot of people. And if you think Rwanda and Darfur are the most oppressive regimes in the world, you've got a lot of catching up to do.

If you would just take something I say for what it is and not twist it into some rambling idea about world politics, which I really don't give a fuck about for the most part, you might be able to see that we agree on a lot of things. But you continue to prove yourself incapable of doing that with both me and many others.

And that is without talking about the CIA suppression, infiltration and destruction of Americans who supported oppressed groups around the world, whether that meant women or blacks in the US or civilians in Vietnam, the SDS and other protest groups were harassed and killed and 'radicalised' by the powers that be to turn them into 'terrorists', along with the necessary propaganda to sway public support.

See this history of a US subculture in places like: http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1/index.htm

So you don't give a fuck about the world around you. Great attitude to take considering you have to live in it. The typical person from China is much less repressed than you might think. Rural communities in China don't really feel the repression and they are just living fine. But that same argument, many in the old Soviet Union are today repressed, but only in some of the worst case scenarios do they even realize it. So I will qualify my statement to differentiate between those who are truly oppressed and those who are technically but don't notice and don't care.

Conspiracy Theorist much Orathaic?

For the most part, no, I think the world we live in is so incredibly fucked up beyond repair that I am more content when I don't worry about it. When I am worrying about it, I'm typically as depressed as I ever get. There's some things in life that I choose to be selfish about for my own good and that's one of them.

To the other, not so dumb half of your statement, you could easily fit someone into the category of truly repressed while also fitting them into the "don't care, don't notice" status. Plenty of people would fit into both.

That's not conspiracy, Draug. You wonder why there were no terrorists plotting to attack the US until the United States started butting into others' affairs.

Like who (as individuals in a group) would fit in both halves? I get that the Chinese are one part repressed and no it and 5 parts don't know and don't care. But each individual makes that determination for themselves (i.e. you can't both know you are repressed and not know it).

The conspiracy part is the CIA supposedly operating against Americans. That is the NSA's job (to terrorize their own people). The CIA has done pretty good about sticking with terrorizing foreign powers and spying on both enemy and ally.

They, along with the rest of the federal government, have. Some members of the federal government continue to push toward doing so today, albeit more subtly, when dealing with immigrants.

@Draug, which bit? Oh sorry, i think i may be wrong, it may have been the FBI not tue CIA who oppressed US citizens in the 60s; and i'm sure they justified the oppression as good there too...

But honestly, i think that most of this is well understood history, just mostly swept under the carpet and not taught to US high school students.

And my point about oppression of it's own citizens is mostly one of diversity, there is no 'them' or 'us', there is a variety of different 'americans'

Now, yes, the FBI oppressed folks in the 50s and 60s (the Way We Were represented the oppression of Hollywood) but not in the manner of a dictatorial totalitarian regime. They mostly harassed folks, but didn't have the power to do much. It was more intimidation that had no real power behind it, but the people being intimidated didn't know they could fight back. The general public has come a long way since the days of "The Red Scare".

And you would be how much was taught (but maybe not so much anymore). The Hollywood Ten were heroes standing up to the House Un-American Activities Committee. It was their willingness to risk being jailed and getting blacklisted by the major studios that eventually brought down the HUAC and made American politics truly free again, at least until the two party system became so dominant that third parties need not bother entering the race anymore.

I suppose the fight against Federal oppression in the US is something with a history i'm not really aware of. Oh wait NSA tapping into private communications? Third-party corporations holding data not considered private? (unlike phone tapping no warrent is needed to get email data held by a third party, it is considered like bank records, which are apparently voluntary handed over to your bank and thus not procected by the constitution...)

Actually, the NSA only collected email metadata, not the contents, just the header info. Same with the phone records. I can't speak to banking records, but you can always open a Swiss numbered account if you like.

When people start entrusting their American money into other national banks, you know there's a problem.

I'm not saying they looked at bank records, i'm saying that legal precedant was set with bank records; and while phone conversations are protected by some privacy admendment records held by a third party are not, which i guess would include webdip private messages, and location data (which mobile phone carriers are required to have for the provision of emergency services) the legality is one question; the justice is quite another.