Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We could send a friendly letter to turkey to tell them to stop jailing publishers all the time and they would probably listen. However, we won't even do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe Turkey would listen? I don't know for sure, but this seems pretty ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Turkey would probably listen: they just probably wouldn't do anything about it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Felix_Nietzsche]

I friendly democracy is nice but a friendly dictatorship is the next best thing....
A Kurdish run dicatorship in Iraq would be fine with me....

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
We could send a friendly letter to turkey to tell them to stop jailing publishers all the time and they would probably listen. However, we won't even do that.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe Turkey would listen? I don't know for sure, but this seems pretty ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the US gives them so much military aid that they would have to listen. The US gave them aid throughout the nineties when they were killing off thousands of kurds.

Of course it's possible that Turkey wouldn't change much. However, the fact that the US doesn't oppose, and in fact supports, the terrible policies of the Turkish government tells you almost everything you need to know about the USA's attitude on spreading "democracy"

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
The goal of the US has never ever ever been to promote democracy anywhere. Usually, our foreign policy is the exact opposite. Eisenhower overthrew the democratic government in guatemala in the fifties. We supported the shah in Iran. We supported Hussein. There are dozens of cases where the US actively supported anti-democratic governments. There are also lots of cases where the US actively opposed democratic governments, like the sandanistas.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be painting many groups with one wide brush. My understanding was that many neocons in fact do want to bring democracy to Iraq. That is what puts the NEO in neocon. They think democracy in and of itself is good even if the temporary consequences are messy.

The "practical" old guard is usually against democracy, and are usually for propping up angry dictators because it is the most practical temporary solution. This practical attitude usually takes the day despite the other voices.


That's what I thought, anyway. You'll probably tell me that I'm off here, and if so I'd like you to elaborate with definitions of who believes in what.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Even on Aug 13 the [Japanese] cabinet was still split on whether to surrender - some still wished to fight on, General Anami Korechika being one of them.

[/ QUOTE ] The Japanese ultra-nationalists abided by the old warrior ethos of honor and self-sacrifice.

The Nazi leader wished for himself and for defeated Germany a hellfire final act much like a Wagnerian twilight of the gods.

It was, in hindsight, almost inevitable that both regimes would all end as they did.

[ QUOTE ]
The Emperor of Japan was (is) a God.

[/ QUOTE ]That was (is) Eric Clapton.

[Emperor]

Wow your title is inflammatory.

The US, its citizens and its government want democracy where it is helpful and efficient to have democracy for economic and political efficiency and effectiveness. Why wouldn't they?

If allowing companies to raise armies and overthrow dictators/uncooperative governments was more efficient, then I would be all for that. However, it isn't.

As a nation we want trade, natural resources, and the freedom to do business with countries that aren't under such internal strife that they can't effectively do business. Iraq needs democracy. If it didn't, we wouldn't be there for the oil.

We need the oil. Iraqi's need stability. So do Somalies. So do the Iranians and Syrians. We will get to them later.

It is about CAPITALISM and the all mighty dollar. Better to institute democracy than to let Haliburton raise an army, and let it go rape, pillage, and plunder like back in the good ol' days. (Conquistadors anyone)

Oh nothing against Haliburton. (I love Haliburton) Just they don't need to weilding Armies and creating governments. Thats what we pay the president for.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
We need the oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam would have been more than happy to sell it to us at $50/barrel. Now we're spending $5B/month and getting about 1M barrels/month. $5,000/barrel.

Pretty smooth.

[Dan.]

WTF is Emperor talking about?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]


If you ever want to get out of whatever world you live in and glimpse reality:
Operation Downfall

Unconditional surrender and the atomic bomb

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear John,

Your first link takes us to the Wikipedia entry. Not much help there.

Your other link takes us to a rather long article, posted on the website of the U.S. Army's Command & General Staff College. I downloaded it, printed it and read it - carefully. Besides finding it to be a document that is rather badly put together (full of syntax and grammar errors), I can tell you that it supports my position rather than yours!

In so many words, it supports the notion that Japan surrendered on account of the atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead of the threat of "a Russian invasion", as you suggested.

You'll have to atone for making me waste my time on something as useless as this exercise. I'll think of something.

Take care,

Mickey Brausch

[PrayNSpraY]

Totally agree with the original poster. As a matter of fact one of the USs biggest allies in the "War on Terror" is Pakistan, the president of which is an army general who came to power by force.
And now we supply this country with F16s and advanced military technology. The only thing holding this country together is the army and as the prez dies or gets assasinated it will be a mess bigger than Iraq.
On a sidenote, u hear Mr. Bush talk about the terrorists trying to impose their way of life on us, while thats exactly what we'r trying to do, impose our way of life on them.