Originally posted by arno_ed ...So if the Iraqi chose to have a goverment controlled by the islamic faith you do not mind, and if the majority of the people in iraq want the USa out of there you think they should leave? If the majority want to murder the minorities, should we let them do it? A representative, democratic government that protects individuals rights must be established. If the Iraqi people then elect a government of clerics and/or is anti-America, so be it. ...on the part of the usa not running around telling people how to life, we just disagree on that fact. i believe they are doing that. but that is just MHO Give me a break. God forbid we should force democracy on a country! And I think the Kuwaitis would disagree with you on who it was that wanted to tell others how to live. Would any of this had happened if Iraq had stayed in its own borders? Would any of this happened if saddam didn't play games with the inspectors? I think not.
Arno, Countries the US has liberated and given back their right to rule themselves. France Germany Italy China Japan Kuwait Serbia Egypt - and most of the North Africa Does this sound like the USA is intent on conquering the world. Sounds like a bunch of people are just worried about their own history and have not looked at ours. The USA may be spreading western civilization, but that in itself is not conquering the world. Is a McDonalds on every corner such a bad thing? DD
Can't believe I missed this before... 1) No...that would be when they were probably the greatest power in Italy...not even that is for sure, as they were later conquered by the Cisalpine Gauls, and literally forced to pass under the yoke. I don't see how the consolidation signifies much at all..said consolidation being incomplete, as the Civil war showed clearly, and the afore mentioned conquest, and they were literally surrounded by superior powers...Carthage, the Gauls, and the Greeks. How can you possibly call the Romans the top nation at a time when they were struggling for local control, while Alexander the Great was conquering the Persian Empire and spreading the Hellenistic life throughout the civilized world, which was the case up to just before the 1st Punic War...any of the Diodacci were more powerfull than Rome at this point. Carthage was also more powerful up to that point. I have never heard anyone say otherwise, including the Romans themselves. Scipio himself refered to the wars combined as the waning of one sun and the rising of another...Cato the Elder refers to the Punic Wars as Rome taking from Carthage her mistress; power in the Western Mediterranean. 2) I was being generous by dating the Empire from the Punic Wars...most experts only call that Roman ascendance over the Western Med; the reigning world power, the Macedonians, Seleucids, Ptolemeics, etc. had yet to be conquered, and even Roman historians like Livy agree that had the Diadocci not spent their time fighting among themselves,but instead turned on Rome rather than let her take them piecemeal ( And Cynocephleae was still very nearly a Roman defeat, hence Rome loses the war with Macedon alone) the Hellenistic hegemony of most of the world would never have been checked. 3) How can you be better off when, aside from the very top levels of your upper class, Romanization meant either death or enslavement? I repeat...over 60% of the total population were slaves.That is much higher when just calculating the numbers for conquered peoples... That is not better, unless you are a slave owner. I doubt you care all that much if France looks nicer and has more advanced plumbing for your conquerors when you are dead or a slave. Rome improved life for Romans...period. 4) Adapting? Ok...so if Hitler had won WWII, what would have been so bad for the rest of Europe? I mean, Germany had the greatest industrial, economic, and military ability in Europe at the time, so what would it have menat to those they conquered but improvement? I really don't see how you are making this argument, assuming you are, with a straight face. It;s like arguing that European conquest of the Americas was a good thing for the natives. Never mind that they were pretty much wiped out, or that those who survived had their culture taken from them, things were much better for the conquerors here after they conquered than they would have been before.
DD... While I could debate the factual interpretation of the US' liberating all of those countries mentioned, and giving them back their freedom ( I must have missed the whole American Single-Handedly Save China part of my history lessons, for example) I would like to point out a larger aspect; We have changed. That is what you aren't understanding that many people are objecting to...We have abandoned the policy of acting only in our defense that we had outwardly adopted during the 20th century...We have become the aggressor. We told the world to abide by global will, and have now decided that we ourselves are above it. There are at least 3 former Presidents living who have raised objections to what they have identified as a departure from our way of doing things...It is not just an anti-Bush thing. It is an anti-new way of doing things thing. The other examples you cite are entirely non-related; in none of them did we decide to invade despite global will, in none of them were we the aggressors, in none of them did we act in anything but self-defense, or in support of global will. This time we decalred war and invaded, nominally for their freedom. We even named it after their freedom. And we are now saying that they can't have the flavour of freedom they want if we don't like it. This is new ground, and remember that it was BEFORE we strated to say that they couldn't have it this way that people were seeing the US' new style of foreign policy as the beginnings of imperialism...This step only serves to confirm that suspicion.
you think having a islamic government and wanting the usa to leave is similar to killing the minority?? Yes god forbid you should force democracy to a country, because if you force it it isn't a democrocy any more
like i have been trying to say, i do not mean the usa is trying to conquer the world as in the original sense. they are not after land, they are after power and influance, and when did the USA alone save those countrys? I stil think the usa is trying to dominate the world. Why should they force other countrys their kind of goverment, and their life style, because those country's are different doesn't mean they are less good. i am not against western civilization.i do not mind the Mcdonalds on every corner.
Democracy...de-moc-ra-cy...Government excercised either directly by the people or through elected representatives...rule by the majority...political system of free elections resulting in representative governement... Force...To compel to act...to get by coercion... Antithetical...An-tith-e-tic-al...Standing in direct contrast: existing in opposition...being of the direct opposite...
Originally posted by arno_ed you think having a islamic government and wanting the usa to leave is similar to killing the minority?? Leaving before we make certain that a democracy is established could very well lead to tragic events. Yes god forbid you should force democracy to a country, because if you force it it isn't a democrocy any more You win it all if you can give me an example of a democracy that isn't a democracy.
Well, the USSR 'forced' several versions of 'Republics' on other nations, which weren't Republics at all...Do I get a cupie doll? Cohen...you have me a tad confused...are you agreeing or disagreeing with Rumsfeld, DD, etc.'s claims that we should enforce democracy, but not 'allow' theocracy even if that is the popular choice, the one representative of the majority?
So what if they end up with something like Iran on their own *after* our time is up. Like someone else mentioned, Iran is slowly changing for the better. The meme of consumerism is too powerful. To attempt to force something on them is to ensure its rejection the same way isolationists here in the US reject and abandoned global committments and treaties.
This is where you have to make a distinction. The USSR and the USA are completely different. If you can't understand the moral difference, then I don't know what to say. It's like when a kidnapper forcibly takes a child from his home, and comparing that to child services taking the child away from an abusive parent. Sure, they are both essentially taking away the freedom of the child to choose where to live, but morally it isn't even close to the same.
MacBeth, Slavery was commonplace both inside and outside the Roman Empire. To claim that the existence of slaves in the Empire is proof that the Empire was not beneficial to conqured nations is a non sequitur. That is like saying that problems that exist now in Iraq are the fault of the US, even if those same problems existed before we got there. As such, I would say that it is better to have roads, cities, commerece, etc. while being in basically the same situtation the country was in before than not. Of course individuals taken as slaves were not going to be happy about it (especially those tossed into the games, which the US will not be doing), but the society as a whole is probably better off. Rome did not wipe out the French, Spanish, et al as America did the Native Americans, so that is a non issue.
Did I say we did any of this single handidly? Nope, but we did have a major hand in liberating all those countries. I do take your point about being the aggressor, but how many times do you take a punch to the face before you stand up and say no more? DD
Also, We are NEVER leaving Iraq, we are going to have military bases there for a long long time..much like we still have them in Germany even though WW2 ended 58 years ago. DD
Edit is enabled. So are you saying Rumsfeld was being less than truthful? I'm pretty sure he was just saying that for propaganda purposes myself. U.S. Won't Seek Bases in Iraq, Rumsfeld Says Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday the United States is unlikely to seek any permanent or "long-term" bases in Iraq because U.S. basing arrangements with other countries in the region are sufficient. While stressing that discussion of future U.S. military ties with Iraq is premature in the absence of a new Iraqi government, Rumsfeld appeared intent yesterday on knocking down the idea of an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. A newspaper report over the weekend suggested that among the options the administration is considering is permanent U.S. access to several Iraqi airfields. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7264-2003Apr21.html
If the majority want the usa to leave and you stay isn't that forcing them into something they do not want? that is not democratic. If you force them into a government with usa influence and they do not want that then it is not democratic. you haven't awnsered my question: if the majority wants the usa to leave and they want an islamic gevernment, do you want the usa to leave? Mr. Clutch what is the difference between the USA and the USSR? they both wanted other countrys to follow them in their government. wich governement is better is debateble.
And, of course, we decide we're the protective child services...A tad self-serving, that definition? Do you think people living in the USSR at the time of their actions thought they were doing wrong, or do you believe that they bought their government's lines about bringing liberation, protecting themselves, and keeping forces in other 'liberated' nations to protect them from themselves and keep the peace? If we are doing what we always said was wrong of others...be it pre-emptive/preventative self-defense, ignoring global will, or telling other nations how they have to live according to what we want for them, how do we keep rationalizing these previously 'wrong' actions by saying we're above all that, we're better than all that, we're different because, gosh darnit, we're the USA? You don't think other nations agreed with themselves too? The proof is in the pudding.
