The liberals would rather people live under brutal dictators, just as long as we don't "offend" anybody.

The liberals would rather people live under brutal dictators, just as long as we don't "offend" anybody.

---Island Dog

Oh! So that's it!
Thanks for clearing that up. And for posting.

I just can't say that the ends always justify the means. Spreading democracy ISN'T a bad thing, but it can be done in bad ways.

Good point, but see this quote from a post of mine from another thread:

~~~"....we went to war because a majority on BOTH sides of the aisle agreed that the WMDs had to be taken care of. They all agreed on their existence, and their threat.
They're not there (which doesn't really mean anything; they could just as easily have been trucked into Syria); okay...

Plan B: We're trying to make it right by the people of Iraq by toppling their dictator (which SHOULD have been done YEARS ago, but wasn't), giving them democracy and its standard of living, in return for demolishing their country for seemingly nothing, and also as repayment for helping into power those that oppressed them for so long. Shame on us."~~~

I just can't say that the ends always justify the means. Spreading democracy ISN'T a bad thing, but it can be done in bad ways.

---Myrrander

I've been thinking about this comment, Myrr..and I'd be curious to know your ideas on spreading democracy peacefully. Do you think the dictatorships would just shrug and step aside, or perhaps pee their pants and run at the sight of our massive war machine?

If we were to attempt to spread democracy around, replacing totalitarian rule with true self-determination, it would have to be an aggressive campaign, of course. How else could it be done?

Rightwinger, democracy, in principle, generally is a good thing. There are, however, requirements and responsibilities of the citizens and leaders in such a form of government. I'd be extremely worried about countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt erupting into democracy right now. Fanatacism, especially Islamic, can easily turn a democracy into an ochlocracy. The American system devised under the Constitution by the Founding Fathers was designed to allow the majority their place in creating and shaping government, but limiting of the ability of majority rule to degenerate into tyranny of the majority. Fanatical Islamic societies need to secularize before we can translate democracy for them as safety for us. I hold out hope for Iraq and Lebanon, and even Iran. I have serious doubts about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Pakistan at this time.

Well my personal feelings on the subject are that Freedoms mean less when you let yourself be pushed around and wazit for somone to give them to you. Call me unreasonanble but that is how I feel. But to say that the Iraqis did nothing would be a fault on my own part. They did react and the reactions on the election day was a huge impact on my thinking. They do deserve some credit not as much as the Army but they do. However I also beleive a government which was won for them is fragile. They need to first need to let go of American sustaining them, then make themselves credible throughout the world and within their own country. They need to gain the confidence from the people that it will work.

Let us also remember the fact that democracy is not neccesarily always positve for the people. If the people are in fact 'stupid' then they will damage themselves. Terrorism can actually grow in a democracy. If the freedom of speech is allowed propaganda Can spread like a plague. Democracy does not ensure a US friendly neighbor. Hopefully they will be but that is not certain.

I do support the troops. My thinking is we have to finish what we started and now it's useless to start crying foul in the motives anymore. All we can do is help them return safely and fast. I do praise Bush for the succesful bounds he has made in the area.

Eastern D & DPS:

I see your points and I agree, to a point. Some people just can't govern themselves.
A case in point might be the Serbians....they lived for centuries under the thumb of foreign empires and oppressive regimes, then, when the USSR collapsed and took European Communism with it, and they had been granted their independence, the first thing they did was go back to the old ways. All the hurts and feuds that had festered for generations came bubbling back up without a stronger power to hold them in check.
The only alternative, then, is for such nations to continue to be under the thumb of a stronger foreign power, which no one actually wants, either.
I have hope for Iraq, though. I think they want a stable government and are willing to work for it.
Do you think, as I do, that sometimes colonialism, despite its reputation, really is a good way to go?

I have hope for Iraq, though. I think they want a stable government and are willing to work for it. Do you think, as I do, that sometimes colonialism, despite its reputation, really is a good way to go?

The end of colonialism in Africa has spelled disaster for the sub-saharan region. In virtually every indicator of quality of life, black Africans are in worse condition than during colonialism. It's not necessarily a result of colonialism, per se. Not directly. The world around Africa changed dramtically, especially technologically. but the political structure of Africa has not adapted. It's tribal, and the time period when rapid de-colonization took place was not conducive to the political growth of African states. Had de-colonization happened gradually, and not during the Cold War, Africa might have turned out better. Fortunately there is not this seething anger towards America in sub-saharan Africa as their is in the Middle East.

I guess my point is be careful about too dramtic a political and social upheaval in too short a period of time. It's not just relegated to Africa or the Middle East. The French Revolution, Russian Revolution attest to this.

And I recall your article a few days ago about Africa. It reminded me of an essay I read on another blog months ago:

Let Africa Sink

I think this is too complicated for me to deal with on an empty stomach, but I think part of it comes from us Lefties not being so satisfied that democracy is all it's cracked up to be. It's still easily corruptible, just like communism. And quite frankly, for the most part it doesn't really work. That's just my opinion, I think if we start debating whether or not it works or not, we would be hijacking this blog for purposes other than what it was started for, but I'm just explaining to you part of my problem as a Leftie.

I find this quote an interesting one to ponder: "Western-style democracy is simply dictatorship by the majority". That's from a member of Libya's Government. Here are some more to contemplate:
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~Winston Churchill
"Democracy: The state of affairs in which you consent to having your pocket picked, and elect the best man to do it. ~Benjamin Lichtenberg

And the sort of democracy that has been installed in Iraq is possibly one of the worst examples of democracy yet. Many many Iraqis think things have gotten worse since Bush came in in the triumphant, violent, arrogant, culturally insensitive way he did.

I think Hussein needed to be removed, I just think it could have been done a lot better. I don't believe that Iraqis are getting a whole lot of great freedoms as a result of Bush.

And finally, what about tribal systems? We on the Left are always supporting the rights of tribes. Are you going to suggest that tribes become democratic?!?! Sometimes a lack of democracy works. That's perhaps irrelevant to Iraq, but it just contributes to my thinking on this. By no means assume that anyone else on "the Left" agree with me.

"The end of colonialism in Africa has spelled disaster for the sub-saharan region."

Yes, but the start of colonialism also spelled disaster in just about everywhere it went. And it's not like Africa was utopia before colonialism ended (in those places where it has).

"The end of colonialism in Africa has spelled disaster for the sub-saharan region." Yes, but the start of colonialism also spelled disaster in just about everywhere it went. And it's not like Africa was utopia before colonialism ended (in those places where it has).

But let me add that life was further from a utopia before colonialism began. The Africans had been enslaving, sacrificing, eating and generally massacring each other long before Europeans arrived in Africa (and in greater numbers). The Zulus are said to have depopulated their and surrounding regions by over 50%. The Cherokee here in the US murdered an estimated 50,000 male men and boys during one raid alone on the tribes we call the mound dwellers of the Mississippi valley about 1500 years ago.

I'm not advocating colonialism, but many people try to make it sound like colonialism was what had destroyed all the utopian societies.

That's My Two Cents

Yes, but the start of colonialism also spelled disaster in just about everywhere it went. And it's not like Africa was utopia before colonialism ended (in those places where it has).

Because we all know what Africa was like BEFORE colonialism began.

And finally, what about tribal systems? We on the Left are always supporting the rights of tribes.

You on the left have a tendency to believe that rights belong to groups rather than individuals. I believe in the rights of groups via the individual, not the other way around.

Sometimes a lack of democracy works.

That was the point of my earlier comment:

Rightwinger, democracy, in principle, generally is a good thing. There are, however, requirements and responsibilities of the citizens and leaders in such a form of government. I'd be extremely worried about countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt erupting into democracy right now. Fanatacism, especially Islamic, can easily turn a democracy into an ochlocracy. The American system devised under the Constitution by the Founding Fathers was designed to allow the majority their place in creating and shaping government, but limiting of the ability of majority rule to degenerate into tyranny of the majority. Fanatical Islamic societies need to secularize before we can translate democracy for them as safety for us. I hold out hope for Iraq and Lebanon, and even Iran. I have serious doubts about Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Pakistan at this time.

"That was the point of my earlier comment:"

I know, I never said I was disagreeing with you. I know it may come as a shock that you and I agree on something (although I think if either extrapolated on what we mean by it, we'd find hefty disagreement), but it's the truth. If you believe in truth that is. Which I don't.

"You on the left have a tendency to believe that rights belong to groups rather than individuals. I believe in the rights of groups via the individual, not the other way around."

That was a cheap shot, a classic lefty-bash that has no relevance to the question. However, I also could quite easily mount the same argument against the Right if I used different examples. It's like the good old "left wingers want laws to make everything good, whereas the Right is all libertarian": It depends whether you're talking about abortion or racism.

"Because we all know what Africa was like BEFORE colonialism began."

Well Lee1776 seems to think he has a fair idea. But you're right, we can't know exactly, but then we can't know exactly what France was like before the toppling of the monarchy either because all history is biased.

I don't know enough about African tribalism to make a judgment on it, but I think tribalism worked fairly well in Australia and New Caledonia/Kanaky until colonialism buggered everything up.