Is Global Democracy The Answer?
EternalMonkey
Join Date: 2003-04-06 Member: 15245Members
Join Date: 2003-04-06 Member: 15245Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Some thoughts</div> "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
--George W. Bush at a recent National Endowment for Democracy event
To read more of his speech go <a href='http://www.ned.org/events/anniversary/oct1603-Bush.html' target='_blank'>here</a>
This is not necessarily my opinion, but mere speculation.
Is global democracy a good idea? is it bad?
Is it possible in countries in the Middle East or Africa?
Is the policy of the Bush administration to essentially force global democracy a good one, or will it result in no end of trouble?
I believe that while we should always encourage democractic reform across the globe. That doesn't mean we remove tyrant after tyrant in order to bring about that change. I am not even entirely certain democracy is possible everywhere. Regardless, it is scary to me that Bush wants to push for this global democractic revolution, it sounds way too much like the ambitions of the Soviet Union to spread global communism. The ends simply don't justify the means, even if it "liberates" countries ruled by despots. This is not a Bush bashing topic so please, no nasty comments. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
--George W. Bush at a recent National Endowment for Democracy event
To read more of his speech go <a href='http://www.ned.org/events/anniversary/oct1603-Bush.html' target='_blank'>here</a>
This is not necessarily my opinion, but mere speculation.
Is global democracy a good idea? is it bad?
Is it possible in countries in the Middle East or Africa?
Is the policy of the Bush administration to essentially force global democracy a good one, or will it result in no end of trouble?
I believe that while we should always encourage democractic reform across the globe. That doesn't mean we remove tyrant after tyrant in order to bring about that change. I am not even entirely certain democracy is possible everywhere. Regardless, it is scary to me that Bush wants to push for this global democractic revolution, it sounds way too much like the ambitions of the Soviet Union to spread global communism. The ends simply don't justify the means, even if it "liberates" countries ruled by despots. This is not a Bush bashing topic so please, no nasty comments. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Since war is made impossible as a result of the ties between capitalist democracies, it seems logic to create more capitalist democracies so that global interdependancy increases and war is even less likely to occur. There has only been 1 war between countries with McDonalds. :-)
EDIT: ^^^^^
WRONG.
There are right and wrong answers in life. Also, its not like saying global communism is the answer, the systems accomplish 2 different goals. Capitalism makes war impossible. Wouldn't that be best?
And please explain how there are right and wrong answers in life. Maybe I should've said choices, no?
This is wayyyy ot though.
edit: "Capitalism doesn't make war impossible, just more unlikely, but if there's reason enough, it can definately still happen."
I would actually say the opposite is true. War is very profitable in terms of money. Loss of human life doesn't really hurt a company's bottom line.
Yes, it does. If your labor supply goes off to war, and kills your buyers and dies, what are you left with? No supply, no demand.
On moral relativism, it seems to me it would be impossible for civilization to exist with out moral absolutes, but that's not really germaine to the topic.
Here's the thing, global democracy, as an actualy policy of the U.S. government, is it something that is possible, and is it something tax payer money, and even blood, should be used to accomplish? Whether global communism is a good or bad thing or if global democracy is a good thing or bad thing, it is the fact that it is being pursued through force as opposed to a natural evolution. I supposed the biggest problem is that it isn't just speculation anymore, this is an actual policy of the President.
Personally, I would like to attempt to murder, rape, steal, stick my hand into an open fire, jab myself with a knife, drink a container of jump off the Patronas Towers without any form of safety, bungee jump without a bungee, tie myself up and drop myself into the middle of the Atlantic, have great amounts of uprotected sex, microwave tinfoil, and lick that green stuff off the bottom of the pool. But it would just be silly if I tried most of that. If I could do any of that without any consequences, I would do it all at the drop of a hat just for the experience of it, but since there would be, I'd have to utilize me ego (Freud), no?
War would be profitable for a while, especially with conventional arms only. Nuclear, Biological, Chemical warfare is usually not that good of a deal; single use, kills WAY too many people. Guns, bullets, grenades, mortars, artillery shells gets expended much faster, can get lost much more easily, all leading to the need for replacements. It's pretty damn hard to lose a nuke (former USS republics withstanding, no offence). Again, profitable as long as there's people willing to kill people, provided there's still people to kill.
Jammer, the only reason my labor would attack my buyers is if I pull off something similar to T3: Rise of the Machines.
But really, I'm off topice.
What I meant to say in my first post, as I have said so eloquently and succinctly, is that it's unfair to judge something before it happens. Hell, Nobel thought he was doing some good when he invented Dynamite, but it has probably killed more people than it saved.
First: Before becoming democratic, referenda must be held among the different groups of the country on whether they want to become independent (like the sunni's and the Kurds in Iraq. If this does not happen, there is a fair chance on oppression of minorities
Second: Some countries are not fit for capitalism due to their economic structure. In countries that thrive on a single product that is held by a few people (such as oil) capitalism will only lead to a improved poverty among the masses. Therefore, it is better to let the (democratic) state control this product and shower the wealth over all the people.
Third: There is a tension between capitalism and democracy. On the one hand, people can vote no matter how poor they are. On the other hand, rich people will have more power than the poor.
Fourth: Democracy should not be influenced by companies. -> sponsoring election campaigns
Fifth: Governments should not be influenced by companies. Countries adjust their laws to attract companies, not to satisfy the people. Not as much a problem in powerful countries, but in small states like Burkina Faso etc. the power is in hands of companies, not the government.
Sixth: Some democratic systems are better than other. Spreading a presidential democratic structure to countries as diverse as Iraq and Afghanistan is asking for trouble.
Seventh: Ending wars is a good thing, but not the same as ending conflicts. Governments might decide not to go to war, but tensions will take the form of economic wars ( like the recent steel war) or terrorism. Still, it's a good thing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Eighth: global unrestrained capitalism has too much cons. States loose power to companies, multinationals will keep the wages lower than usual, pollute the environment, torture animals, etc etc.
Ninth: Global democracy/ capitalism does not per se mean that all countries will have the same grade of interconnectedness (is that a word?). Especially the countries that are now extremely poor, will still be left alone.
Tenth: Global democracy will not prevent wars when it is not accompanied with "real" global democracy - with this I mean that countries should get boting rights in international organisations according to the number of inhabitants, not their wealth or military power.
Yes, it does. If your labor supply goes off to war, and kills your buyers and dies, what are you left with? No supply, no demand. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
People are a very renewable resource. If anything, we have more than we need already (evidenced by exportation of jobs to India and the like). Plus, many jobs that went vacant through the war effort could be easily replaced by robots. Just don't send the skilled labor and academics (those not so easily replaced), and it will work out.
The fact that he sold out Taiwan to China shows something about his character. Since Nixon we have been making treaties to help protect democratic Taiwan, and even when Bush came into office he made a pledge to protect Taiwan against China.
Apparently he is now sacrificing his "democracy for the world" principles and sides with China when Taiwan wanted to hold a referendum to remove the dozens of missles aimed at Taiwan from China. Taiwan saw this and held a democratic referendum to remove the missles, which China saw as a precursor to their indepence and wish to prevent it from happening. In Bush's meeting with Wen last week, he confirmed his stance with communist China to prevent Taiwan from holding the referendum to possibly gain their independence.
It's almost like Bush has one set of ideals in the middle east, but a totally different philosophy in the far east.
Can anyone say hypocrite?
War is not profitable. Engaging in war means huge defecit spending. While this might help businesses in the short run, that means the government also pays larger and larger interest rates. That leads to inflation, taxes, etc.
While loss of life might not hurt a company's profit, it does lower the public opinion of the war drastically. Take a look at Iraq, everybody was looking to go into this thing, now the morale is very low. Not even that many people died as compared to past examples.
Foreign Policy isn't exactly a one-size-fits-all deal. Of course Bush has to change policies between looking at the Middle East and the Far East. And we should all know better, pretty much all politicians are hypocritical to a certain degree <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
And can you image? Owning a human cloning business and a ordanance business (in far future of course)? You can supply your own demand.
The U.S. did it because it was in their best interest. I can spell it with 3 letters.
The U.S. also made a LOT of money in WWI by selling munitions to the allies, which allowed them to become such a leading ecomony to the smoking ruin ruins in Europe. True, WWII did bring us out of the depression, but it also multiplied our national deficit by 20. (or something like that, I have no idea what the statistics are)
I wish Bush would stop going around and spouting "Democracy for the World" and start being realistic
The fact that he sold out Taiwan to China shows something about his character. Since Nixon we have been making treaties to help protect democratic Taiwan, and even when Bush came into office he made a pledge to protect Taiwan against China.
Apparently he is now sacrificing his "democracy for the world" princibles and sides with China when Taiwan wanted to hold a referendum to remove the dozens of missles aimed at Taiwan from China. Taiwan saw this and held a democratic referendum to remove the missles, which China saw as a precursor to their indepence and wish to prevent it from happening. In Bush's meeting with Wen last week, he confirmed his stance with communist China to prevent Taiwan from holding the referendum to possibly gain their independence.
It's almost like Bush has one set of ideals in the middle east, but a totally different philosophy in the far east.
Can anyone say hypocrit? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bush administration has not said it will not protect Taiwan... All it is saying is that it believes it is best to continue the "One China" policy. A policy that has existed for many decades now. Does this mean that the US would not help defend Taiwan should China attack? No. No where is that said. All that has been said is that the Bush administration does not believe Taiwan should antagonize China. The status-quo must be maintained in this case. Its not like Taiwan is being oppressed by China... Taiwan acts on its own. China just considers it a renegade province. The status-quo must be maintained.
So where did the US withdraw its support for Taiwan? Oh Yeah! No where!
They held a DEMOCRATIC referendum to get China to scrap the missiles. That doesn't sound too terribly harsh, but a U.S. backed China wants to prevent Taiwan from initiating the referendum. Personally I think this is a horrible policy to adapt, and I'd be a little **** off if I was the president of Taiwan.
What Bush is de facto saying is "global democractic revolution!, except when I have corporations biting ay my heels to maintain good relations with China to exploit the cheap labor found there."
I think it is a sad thing for the leader of the free world to do so, but at the same time, people like Billy Bob Clinton would have done the exact same thing.
China would not DREAM of loosing American trade realtions. I think upwards of 75% of their exports go to the U.S. Bush could have easily supported that Taiwanese referendum, but pardon my french, he doesn't have the balls.
Hey, moving away from communistic central-planned economy is something else than moving away from state-controlled oppression of the people. Prove to me that the human rights situattion in China has improved since 1989, please <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->.
Okedoke. Compare the overview of Chinese human rights violations from <a href='http://hrw.org/wr2k3/asia4.html' target='_blank'>2003</a> to <a href='http://www.hrw.org/reports/1990/WR90/ASIA.BOU-04.htm#P241_56227' target='_blank'>1990</a>. I'm not saying they have what we would consider good human rights, or even bad ones. I would certainly offer that based on this organization's assesment, they have improved.
That's no oppression.
By that logic Japan is oppressed by NK... as is SK. Russia and china are oppressed by the US. The entire Middle East is oppressed by Israel...
Taiwan is not oppressed. They're national security is just never a sure thing.
Again... US support and backing for Taiwan has not deminished. All that has been said is that the status quo must be maintained.... That Taiwan should not purposefully antagonize China.
Where is the oppression? Where is the withdrawal of support? Neither is true. Both are falacies.
The 2000 elections was not the first time that the winning candidate did not have the popular vote. People are sounding like it was the first time or something... But it wasn't. Even reports done by the media since after the elections have said that Bush would have beaten Gore had a full recount been done. Just drop the 2000 elections already... Its over and done with and nothing was stolen.