in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[AEON]

Originally posted by namkcuR


That's not the point. We're not talking about the effectiveness(or non-effectiveness) of democracy. We're talking about the idea of forcing ANY governmental system on ANY country. Going from a totalitarian dictatorship to a democracy(or any governmental shift of that magnitude) is a revolution, and more often than not in world history, revolutions start within, not externally. This is not about whether democracy works or not, it's about why America feels like it has the right to force any governmental system at all on anyone. What gives us that right? Why do we think it's our place? Some of us think it is our place, and some of us think we have absolutely no right. That's what this is about.

Was it right for the US Army to invade the Confederate States of America in 1861 and impose its version of democracy? Was the world a better place as a result of this invasion?

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Was it right for the US Army to invade the Confederate States of America in 1861 and impose its version of democracy? Was the world a better place as a result of this invasion?

Wow, what a revisionist perspective of history...

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


yeah, you do, when you say the loss of that many lives is a "good thing" then yes you better back it up with something, it's apparant you can't...

You still haven't told me why democracy HAS to be spread...

If you don't already see that South Korea is a functioning, globally participating, thriving, vibrant, free society and that North Korea is the exact opposite - then nothing I could post would convince you otherwise.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow, what a revisionist perspective of history...

Are you a Civil War Denier?

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Are you a Civil War Denier?

No I just deny your warped perception of the civil war...

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


If you don't already see that South Korea is a functioning, globally participating, thriving, vibrant, free society and that North Korea is the exact opposite - then nothing I could post would convince you otherwise.

Look back at your posts, you said those lives worked for KOREA, and obviously they didn't. But then again revisionist history seems to be your thing...

[namkcuR]

Originally posted by AEON


Was it right for the US Army to invade the Confederate States of America in 1861 and impose its version of democracy? Was the world a better place as a result of this invasion?

It's not the same thing and you know it. That was a CIVIL war, CIVIL being the operative word. Meaning that it was a war between two factions of the same country. I don't care if the south called itself something else, the point is that the south wanted to eventually control all of the country and so did the north. It was a conflict within one country, and both sides wanted it to be one country, they just had different ideas of what morals and ideals and principles the foundation of that country should be based on. It's totally different to invading a completely different country and trying to force on them a system that they never asked us for.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Look back at your posts, you said those lives worked for KOREA, and obviously they didn't. But then again revisionist history seems to be your thing...

The war is called the Korean War - and casually referred to as "Korea" just as the Vietnam War is referred to as "Vietnam" or "Nam" - even though the result in the Korean War was to preserve the democracy of South Korea.

I'm sorry for assuming that when I mentioned a democracy on the Korean peninsula people would understand I was referring to SOUTH Korea.

[BVS]

Nice cover...

[Diemen]

I think Aeon is working under the assumption that any American-established (or instigated) democracy in a foreign country will automatically be pro-America.

Let's be honest here. Democracy is a secondary goal here. What Bush and the neocons really want is a pro-US government that will essentially do what we say and give us a stronger foothold in the region. Freedom to the people is a nice slogan, but we (and by we, I mean Bushco) really only care if they do what we say.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Diemen
I think Aeon is working under the assumption that any American-established (or instigated) democracy in a foreign country will automatically be pro-America.

Well if they should elect a crazy cleric, you can just bomb them back into submission!

[AEON]

Originally posted by namkcuR


I don't care if the south called itself something else,

The South refers to it as the War Between the States, and they most certainly thought they were a separate government. They had their own president, congress, judicial system, ambassadors...etc.

Originally posted by namkcuR

It's totally different to invading a completely different country and trying to force on them a system that they never asked us for.

The fact is, the United States imposed a system of racial equality that the Confederate States did not want. Was this right? Most people tend to think so (although most of those living in the South in 1861 would disagree with me).

[AEON]

Originally posted by Diemen
I think Aeon is working under the assumption that any American-established (or instigated) democracy in a foreign country will automatically be pro-America.

Let's be honest here. Democracy is a secondary goal here. What Bush and the neocons really want is a pro-US government that will essentially do what we say and give us a stronger foothold in the region. Freedom to the people is a nice slogan, but we (and by we, I mean Bushco) really only care if they do what we say.

Are you saying that if spreading democracy was the Primary, not Secondary, goal - then you would support the mission in Iraq?

[namkcuR]

Originally posted by AEON


The South refers to it as the War Between the States, and they most certainly thought they were a separate government. They had their own president, congress, judicial system, ambassadors...etc.



The fact is, the United States imposed a system of racial equality that the Confederate States did not want. Was this right? Most people tend to think so (although most of those living in the South in 1861 would disagree with me).

I'm really starting to feel like you're missing the point on purpose.

The South may have had its own government and what not, but they eventually wanted control of the WHOLE country and they wanted to implent their government on the WHOLE country, and the North wanted their government to STAY implemented in the whole country. It was two factions of the same land fighting for control of that land. It's more comperable to the civil war that's going on in Iraq right now(multiple factions of the same country fighting for control) than it is to any kind of American imperialism.

[Diemen]

No, not at all, and I don't see how you could draw that conclusion. All I'm saying is that all the Right's rhetoric around this war has been at best half-truths, and, more realistically, bald lies meant to pull at the emotions of average Joe America, without any real substance behind them.

WMDs/Immediate threat? Hah.
Depose a brutal dictator/freedom for the people? If Saddam had been pro-America, Bush wouldn't have lifted a finger.
Spread democracy? Only if they do what we say.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON

The fact is, the United States imposed a system of racial equality that the Confederate States did not want. Was this right? Most people tend to think so (although most of those living in the South in 1861 would disagree with me).

Interesting view, one most conservatives wouldn't take, at least southern conservatives...

But you still don't have it quite right... and it's interesting how you twist the facts of this war, equate it to this war. Very telling.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Interesting view, one most conservatives wouldn't take, at least southern conservatives...

But you still don't have it quite right... and it's interesting how you twist the facts of this war, equate it to this war. Very telling.

It was a good point...

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


It was a good point...

No Not if the facts aren't right...

What are you smoking?

[Infinity]

Comparing the Civil War to the Iraq War is like comparing apples to oranges. In case you didn't know AEON, the Confederacy was a part of the United States which declared themselves that they were separate. Unfortunately, under the United States Constitution, no state can seccede from the country. The U.S. federal government overules any state or multiple state government. The U.S. federal government does NOT however overule the government of a foreign nation. We should never attack a foreign nation unless they are a threat to us.

Oh, and about spreading Democracy. That reason is BULLSHIT. That is not why Bush went into Iraq. There are many countries around the world that are not democracies. Some of these countries also hold WMD's and are safe harbors to al-Qaeda. Why not invade them?

Why not invade Pakistan?

Is Pakistan a democracy? No

Does Pakistan hold WMD's? Yes

Is there a strong al-Qaeda (the al-Qaeda that attacked us) base in Pakistan? Yes, and that region of the country is even out of the control of the Pakistani government.


What about North Korea?

Is it a democracy? No

Does it hold WMD's? Yup.


What about China:

Is it a democracy? Nope.

Does it contain WMD's? Yup.




Now lets compare this to pre-2003 Iraq:

Was it a democracy? No.

Did it contain WMD's? No.

Did it harbor the al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11? No. In fact, Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein and vice versa. In the first Gulf War, Osama bin Laden offered the Saudi government his own al-Qaeda fighters to fight AGAINST Saddam Hussein. Also, Saddam Hussein has always hated terrorists. He always wanted full control in Iraq. He didn't care for fundamental Islam. Had Osama bin Laden ever entered Iraq pre-2003, Saddam would have seen him as a threat to his influence and would have had him murdered within seconds.




Now I am not supporting an invasion of any of these nations. But I wonder why Bush hasn't even mentioned war against any of them. They all seem to be far more dangerous to the U.S. than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein. So why not "spread democracy" by bombing all of these nations?

[AEON]

Originally posted by Infinitum98
So why not "spread democracy" by bombing all of these nations?

The best question of the night. And I admit - other than resources, and I can't think of a good reason. (with the exception of China - which is showing progress)