Should the United States Support International Democritization?

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I've often found that poseurs to actual thinking slap together posts composed of bumper sticker concepts, and vague non-specific charges, such as "conservatives don't even discuss truth," and "as often as she puts her foot in her own mouth."

I can imagine the energy that went into this post!

You must be exhausted from the efforts you put in.

But I seem to have misplaced my Cretin to English Dictionary, so would you mind translating "try quoting someone of substance not ideals."



I'd be amiss if I didn't welcome you to the board, but I must also say that this level of work is far from acceptable.


Make your charges.
Specify your complaints.

...if you dare.

 

[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.

I've often found that poseurs to actual thinking slap together posts composed of bumper sticker concepts, and vague non-specific charges, such as "conservatives don't even discuss truth," and "as often as she puts her foot in her own mouth."

I can imagine the energy that went into this post!

You must be exhausted from the efforts you put in.

But I seem to have misplaced my Cretin to English Dictionary, so would you mind translating "try quoting someone of substance not ideals."



I'd be amiss if I didn't welcome you to the board, but I must also say that this level of work is far from acceptable.


Make your charges.
Specify your complaints.

...if you dare.

Being that this is the form of social interaction you find most comfortable I will no longer challenge you in the only place your opinion matters. But I will say I took the first shot and I shouldn't have. I do long for a day when liberals and conservatives can have fruitful and meaningful discussions. So I'm sorry and realize that I add nothing to the debate by leading with an insult. Lets get back to real debate please.

 

[Polk]

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?

Our support of democratization and human rights has always been conditional upon our national interest. That's a positive thing, in my opinion, but to claim we're a great champion of democracy is laughable. We're for free and fair elections and open society to the extent it promotes our interests.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I've often found that poseurs to actual thinking slap together posts composed of bumper sticker concepts, and vague non-specific charges, such as "conservatives don't even discuss truth," and "as often as she puts her foot in her own mouth."

I can imagine the energy that went into this post!

You must be exhausted from the efforts you put in.

But I seem to have misplaced my Cretin to English Dictionary, so would you mind translating "try quoting someone of substance not ideals."



I'd be amiss if I didn't welcome you to the board, but I must also say that this level of work is far from acceptable.


Make your charges.
Specify your complaints.

...if you dare.

Being that this is the form of social interaction you find most comfortable I will no longer challenge you in the only place your opinion matters. But I will say I took the first shot and I shouldn't have. I do long for a day when liberals and conservatives can have fruitful and meaningful discussions. So I'm sorry and realize that I add nothing to the debate by leading with an insult. Lets get back to real debate please.

So where is it?

State your position, and I'll make the determination as to whether it is liberal or conservative.

Should there be any doubt, mine is of the conservative persuasion.

But- I agree to take a step back, and will answer you with the same tone and tenor as you post.

 

[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?

Our support of democratization and human rights has always been conditional upon our national interest. That's a positive thing, in my opinion, but to claim we're a great champion of democracy is laughable. We're for free and fair elections and open society to the extent it promotes our interests.

Having been self-identified as not believing in American exceptionalism, you will never be able to see that the United States has been, more often than not, the champion of freedom and democracy.

The following, while not exatly verbatim, is close enough to make the point:

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.


But, I don't expect you to understand.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't support "democritization" at the end of a barrel.

The neocon's flawed philosophy is as intellectually and morally bankrupt as it was in the 70's.

 

[geauxtohell]

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.


But, I don't expect you to understand.

I wonder if General Powell would stand by those words today?

 

[PoliticalChic]

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.


But, I don't expect you to understand.

I wonder if General Powell would stand by those words today?

Why would he not?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Powell was obviously unaware of much of American history. He ignored Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for starters, all of which were obtained through conquest. Not to mention any land here in the U.S. we gained through massacring the Native Americans.

 

[geauxtohell]

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.


But, I don't expect you to understand.

I wonder if General Powell would stand by those words today?

Why would he not?

Powell tried to talk Bush out of war - Times Online

Furthermore, I was under the impression that he was more than a little unhappy about they way the administration used him to feed misinformation to the UN.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1

It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address -- assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

I propose that anyone who wants to spread democracy through force form their own units and put their own necks on the line.

It is not the mission of the United States Military.

 

[rdean]

Should the United States Support International Democritization?

That would include equal rights for gays and Republicans have already told us that would destroy America.

They have been right so often for the last ten years. We know we can trust what they say. It's all based on a "gut" feeling. Obviously, the best kind.

 

[geauxtohell]

Powell was obviously unaware of much of American history. He ignored Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for starters, all of which were obtained through conquest. Not to mention any land here in the U.S. we gained through massacring the Native Americans.

Yeah, it's a chintzy little anecdote that has all the heart-string yankers of a Chrismas Special.

However, just as "democritization", it is devoid of reality and pragmatism.

 

[Polk]

Having been self-identified as not believing in American exceptionalism, you will never be able to see that the United States has been, more often than not, the champion of freedom and democracy.

The following, while not exatly verbatim, is close enough to make the point:

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

But, I don't expect you to understand.

We've never been the champions of freedom and democracy. Can you name a single case where we promoted freedom and democracy when doing so was contrary to our national interest?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Powell was obviously unaware of much of American history. He ignored Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for starters, all of which were obtained through conquest. Not to mention any land here in the U.S. we gained through massacring the Native Americans.

During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.
Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..

Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”


In comparison, you conveniently omit mention of the million saved and freed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men of the United States Armed Forces.

 

[Polk]

Powell was obviously unaware of much of American history. He ignored Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for starters, all of which were obtained through conquest. Not to mention any land here in the U.S. we gained through massacring the Native Americans.

Even beyond that, it's based on an outdated notion. Nations rarely annex territories in the modern age. What does happen is that they apply direct and indirect forms of outside control (puppet governments, economic ties).

 

[Polk]

In comparison, you conveniently omit mention of the million saved and freed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men of the United States Armed Forces.

But none of those men died because we were battling over some great moral imperative. We fought because doing so was seen as less costly in the long-run that the results of inaction.

 

[Gatekeeper]

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?

WTF? I can't even pronounce it.

 

[geauxtohell]

During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.
Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..

Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”


In comparison, you conveniently omit mention of the million saved and freed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men of the United States Armed Forces.

Wow. Just like trees, there are more indians now then when Columbus landed!

Of course we didn't take the Indians land from them and the "trail of tears" was actually misnamed. It should have been called the "good fortune walk from your crappy ancestral lands to a brand new home in Oklahoma!"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Powell was obviously unaware of much of American history. He ignored Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for starters, all of which were obtained through conquest. Not to mention any land here in the U.S. we gained through massacring the Native Americans.

During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.
Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..

Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”


In comparison, you conveniently omit mention of the million saved and freed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men of the United States Armed Forces.

You conveniently omit mention of the millions killed on several continents at great cost to the fighting men and women of the United States Armed Forces and the responsible and hardworking American taxpayers.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Powell was obviously unaware of much of American history. He ignored Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Hawaii for starters, all of which were obtained through conquest. Not to mention any land here in the U.S. we gained through massacring the Native Americans.

Even beyond that, it's based on an outdated notion. Nations rarely annex territories in the modern age. What does happen is that they apply direct and indirect forms of outside control (puppet governments, economic ties).

Also true.