Should the United States Support International Democritization?

[PoliticalChic]

One aspect of American Exceptionalism has been support for democritization and human rights throughout the world.

Our President has stepped away from this view: "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

But it seems that other Western leaders agree with the President, and it seems to coincide with a view that, ultimately, Afghanistan may be more authoritarian than democratic.

Here is an interesting, short, article from Eurasianet, about upcoming elections in Central Asia.

"The quiet international response to Tajikistan’s electoral process is prompting some to suggest the United States and the European Union are growing fatigued with democratization in Central Asia.

... a western diplomat said on condition of anonymity. "Why spend money on an electoral process that is pre-determined? In essence, assisting in pre-election efforts now with the close collaboration of the CEC would be tantamount to aligning oneself with the regime," the diplomat said. And beyond the money issue, the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan is prompting foreign officials and observers to "prefer a stable, rather than a democratic Central Asia," the diplomat suggested."

EurasiaNet Civil Society - Tajikistan: Is the West Showing Signs of Democratization Fatigue?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"[America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams

No, in other words.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"[America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams

No, in other words.

"If we define neoconservatism, in Mr. Kagan's words, as "potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America's exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy," then it was a doctrine held by Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Theodore Roosevelt. "

"Generations from now, Americans may be taught that "the neoconservatives" forced America into war, much as Hearst believed in 1898. But after reading World Affairs it seems clear that, no matter who is in the White House when the next serious crisis comes, America is likely to find itself returning to the same calculus of interest and idealism — call it traditional, liberal, interventionist, or simply neoconservative — that it used when dealing with Iraq."
Neocon Resurgence - August 7, 2008 - The New York Sun

 

[Avatar4321]

Id prefer to see international republicanization.. And Im not talking at all about the Republican party here.

 

[xotoxi]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

What does this have to do with Thanksgiving?

Give it a little rest and spend some time with the family.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

[Avatar4321]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

What does this have to do with Thanksgiving?

Give it a little rest and spend some time with the family.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Maybe some people are grateful for their free government and wish to share it with others?

Does everything have to do with thanksgiving? I mean i am enjoying the holiday but doing something I love for a bit of the day and thats talk with everyone here. Going to celebrate it with my family soon though. That should be fun too.

 

[xotoxi]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

What does this have to do with Thanksgiving?

Give it a little rest and spend some time with the family.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Maybe some people are grateful for their free government and wish to share it with others?

Does everything have to do with thanksgiving? I mean i am enjoying the holiday but doing something I love for a bit of the day and thats talk with everyone here. Going to celebrate it with my family soon though. That should be fun too.

Sounds great! Have fun and eat a lot!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

What does this have to do with Thanksgiving?

Give it a little rest and spend some time with the family.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

I've always felt that time management was one of my skills.

Not yours?

 

[Contumacious]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

Identify - by Article , Section and Clause - that constitutional proviso which authorizes the federal government to "support International Democratization" - whatever the fuck that means.

Was the Shah Of Iran - Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi - an example of "supporting International Democratization"?!?!?

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

Identify - by Article , Section and Clause - that constitutional proviso which authorizes the federal government to "support International Democratization" - whatever the fuck that means.

Was the Shah Of Iran - Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi - an example of "supporting International Democratization"?!?!?

.

What, exactly, is your problem with our support of the Shah, or do you mean the Carter stab-in-the-back that resulted in the current Iranian regime?

As for Constitutional support, please provide same for bailouts and the 'redistribution of wealth." Did you have a problem with "Voice of America" broadcasts, or with the Obama Administration "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, ..."
Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran


In a word, are you advocating isolationism?

 

[uscitizen]

We should support democarcies around the world with trade and other non military support.
Military support would be a last resort if an ally was being invaded or the like.

We should never overthrow countries to try and impose our own form of government on them.

 

[uscitizen]

ON the Shah, he was the playboy son of the previous leader of Iran who was a Hitler supporter.

And we put "The Shah" in power. Good for our business interests, bad for the people of Iran.

That was sure supporting democracy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

ON the Shah, he was the playboy son of the previous leader of Iran who was a Hitler supporter.

And we put "The Shah" in power. Good for our business interests, bad for the people of Iran.

That was sure supporting democracy?

In the midst of World War II in 1941, Nazi Germany began Operation Barbarossa and invaded the Soviet Union, breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This had a major impact on Iran as the country had declared neutrality in the conflict.[4]

That year British and Soviet forces invaded and occupied Iran, forcing Reza Shah to abdicate. His son, Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi replaced his father on the throne on 16 September 1941. It was hoped that the younger prince would be more open to influence from the pro-Allied West, which later proved to be the case.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contumacious]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

Identify - by Article , Section and Clause - that constitutional proviso which authorizes the federal government to "support International Democratization" - whatever the fuck that means.

Was the Shah Of Iran - Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi - an example of "supporting International Democratization"?!?!?

.

What, exactly, is your problem with our support of the Shah,

"Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddeq with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax.[6] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mosaddeq as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

In 1978 the deepening opposition to the Shah erupted in widespread demonstrations and rioting. SAVAK and the military responded with widespread repression that killed thousands of people. Recognizing that even this level of violence had failed to crush the rebellion, the Shah abdicated the Peacock Throne and departed Iran on 16 January 1979. Despite decades of pervasive surveillance by SAVAK, working closely with CIA, the extent of public opposition to the Shah, and his sudden departure, came as a considerable suprise to the US intelligence community and national leadership. As late as 28 September 1978 the US Defense Intelligence Agency reported that the shah "is expected to remain actively in power over the next ten years." [31]

As for Constitutional support, please provide same for bailouts and the 'redistribution of wealth."

I know that we are being governed by criminal scumbags.....

In a word, are you advocating isolationism?

I am advocating neutrality and NON-INTERVENTIONISM.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Identify - by Article , Section and Clause - that constitutional proviso which authorizes the federal government to "support International Democratization" - whatever the fuck that means.

Was the Shah Of Iran - Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi - an example of "supporting International Democratization"?!?!?

.

What, exactly, is your problem with our support of the Shah,

"Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mosaddeq with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax.[6] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mosaddeq as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

In 1978 the deepening opposition to the Shah erupted in widespread demonstrations and rioting. SAVAK and the military responded with widespread repression that killed thousands of people. Recognizing that even this level of violence had failed to crush the rebellion, the Shah abdicated the Peacock Throne and departed Iran on 16 January 1979. Despite decades of pervasive surveillance by SAVAK, working closely with CIA, the extent of public opposition to the Shah, and his sudden departure, came as a considerable suprise to the US intelligence community and national leadership. As late as 28 September 1978 the US Defense Intelligence Agency reported that the shah "is expected to remain actively in power over the next ten years." [31]

As for Constitutional support, please provide same for bailouts and the 'redistribution of wealth."

I know that we are being governed by criminal scumbags.....

In a word, are you advocating isolationism?

I am advocating neutrality and NON-INTERVENTIONISM.

.

I am familiar with Ajax, and, on the other side, the Majlis pressure on the Shah to empower Mossadegh, who himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.

But it is so difficult to see this in black and white, alone.

Given the opportunity to alter history, are you saying that support of Palavi would be more injurious to the United States and the world then allowing the Islamic fundementalists to have come to power?

Are you a subscriber to the thinking that policies that keep industrial engine of the west functioning (oil) is less desirable than letting the nations who can control oil dictate which nations survive?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"[America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." - John Quincy Adams

No, in other words.

"If we define neoconservatism, in Mr. Kagan's words, as "potent moralism and idealism in world affairs, a belief in America's exceptional role as a promoter of the principles of liberty and democracy," then it was a doctrine held by Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Theodore Roosevelt. "

"Generations from now, Americans may be taught that "the neoconservatives" forced America into war, much as Hearst believed in 1898. But after reading World Affairs it seems clear that, no matter who is in the White House when the next serious crisis comes, America is likely to find itself returning to the same calculus of interest and idealism — call it traditional, liberal, interventionist, or simply neoconservative — that it used when dealing with Iraq."
Neocon Resurgence - August 7, 2008 - The New York Sun

I would definitely say Hamilton, Clay, and Roosevelt were neocons, but that's not a compliment to those men.

 

[WillowTree]

I no longer care.. Those ideals have long left me. I say it's every man for himself. If other countries arent' willing to stand up for themselves then let them fall to the dictators. I believe nowadays the US of KKKA so go with isolationism as much as it can.

 

[Dr Grump]

only in a benign way and depending on the situation...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It depends on what your definition of "Support" is. We should always support Freedom & Democratization but we can do that without aggressive Foreign Interventionist policies. Free Trade and peaceful relations with all nations can be achieved. We just need to shed our old skin on this one. We need a more neutral stance on foreign policy. No more "World's Policeman" and "World's Referee" policies. There is absolutely no reason why we can't do business with and have good relations with all nations on this planet. We just need to mind our own business more. We should stop aspiring to be an Empire and get back to concentrating on helping our own people. Our Founding Fathers never meant for us to become an Empire. So my answer to your question would still have to be Yes but lets do it the right way.

 

[politicalpurest]

I'd be scared to go around quoting Ann Coulter as often as she puts her foot in her own mouth. And conservatives don't even discuss truth when debating the issues. So a more accurate quote my be that "On must issues people are not informed enough to have an opinion either way". In the future try quoting someone of substance not ideals.