|
|
#61
02-23-2007, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: U.S. Army steps in
OP - Are you saying that only privileged westerners should be able to have democracy?
Others, previously, have argued that Asian people could not govern themselves (eg, Japan) and that German people should not govern themselves. I think that is morally bankrupt. 
|
|
#62
02-23-2007, 02:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. Army steps in
[ QUOTE ]
OP - Are you saying that only privileged westerners should be able to have democracy? [/ QUOTE ] no. what makes you think I'm saying that? [ QUOTE ] Others, previously, have argued that Asian people could not govern themselves (eg, Japan) and that German people should not govern themselves. I think that is morally bankrupt. [/ QUOTE ] Agreed.
|
|
#64
02-23-2007, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. Army steps in
[ QUOTE ]
OP - Are you saying that only privileged westerners should be able to have democracy? Others, previously, have argued that Asian people could not govern themselves (eg, Japan) and that German people should not govern themselves. I think that is morally bankrupt. [/ QUOTE ] So if you think everyone should be able to govern themselves, why do you care about democracy?
|
|
#65
02-23-2007, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. Army steps in
[ QUOTE ]
awesome. good to hear. too often I see people following up your original argument with comments such as Arabs being unsuited to democracy. [/ QUOTE ] Arabs are not inherently "unsuited" to democracy, but that doesn't mean that in the Middle East most will take to democracy like ducks to water, either. The history and culture of the Middle East has long not been democratic, and many centuries of tradition don't disappear overnight. Also, the widespread religious element that desires Shari'a religious rule is not in favor of democratic rule. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If you're saying that Arabs have no genetic component that prevents them from democracy, I agree wholeheartedly. If you're ignoring centuries of tradition and vast numbers of Middle Easterners who favor Shari'a law, and saying that democracy ought to work as readily in the Middle East as anywhere else, then I disagree. Democracy (in the Western sense with genuine civil rights protections) unfortunately isn't likely to be widely adopted in the Middle East any time in the foreseeable future. It's possible, but in my opinion it isn't likely. By the way, that is one major area where I believe the Neo-Cons erred: in supposing that the installation of a viable, Western-style democracy in the Middle East would be relatively little trouble. The Neo-Cons blithely dismissed many centuries of tradition, and the fact that democracy has no roots in Middle Eastern history, and the fact that millions of Middle Easterners want Shari'a religious rule rather than democracy. But the Neo-Cons promised us it would be a done deal: Riiiight. I don't doubt that Middle Easterners are capable of ruling themselves. In the foreseeable future, though, it just isn't likely to be under a democracy with constitutional protections for what we in the West consider essential human/civil rights. But of course, Middle Easterners are perfectly capable of ruling themselves. I don't see why anyone would think that they aren't so capable.
|
|
#66
02-23-2007, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. Army steps in
[ QUOTE ]
awesome. good to hear. too often I see people following up your original argument with comments such as Arabs being unsuited to democracy. [/ QUOTE ] Cultures are very difficult to make drastic changes in in short periods of time. If you switch an Arab baby with an American baby, chances are they will follow the same paths otherwise. However, you are trying to change centuries of tradition and culture overnight. It has to be an ooch approach. 100 years ago, blacks were regarded as inferior almost to the point of being a different species. 50 years ago they couldn't ride busses in the South or eat at certain restaruants. Today, one has a very good shot of being elected President. Cultures can change, but it happens with time.
|
|
#67
02-23-2007, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. Army steps in
[ QUOTE ]
You'll have to atone for making me waste my time on something as useless as this exercise. I'll think of something. [/ QUOTE ] Mickey, The post you cited was a response to MidGe's claim that Japan was going to surrender and the U.S. dropped the bombs anyway. Quote from MidGe: [ QUOTE ] Just to make things even clearer, Japan government had already accepted the need for surrender, they were in discussions about the terms of such surrender, well before the nuclear attack by the USA. The USA government knew it and acted in haste to ensure they could "test" their weapons of mass destruction, "show" their might, seemingly for a "reasonable" cause. [/ QUOTE ] As to the Soviet issue, I'm not contending that the bombs had no influence on the decision to surrender, just that it was the unwillingness of the Soviet's to accept anything but an unconditional surrender from Japan, that forced their hand. Throughout the summer, Japan had been trying to reach an agreement with the Soviet's that would allow them to maintain their sovereignty. When the Soviet's broke the neutrality pact they had with Japan since 1941 and launched operation August Storm, Japan was left with no other options. That's checkmate. Along with the U.S. the USSR wouldn't accept anything but unconditional surrender. Japan could have surrendered to Soviet's and there wouldn't have been too much the Allies could have done about it, just like there wasn't too much Stalin could do with the way it ultimately played out.
|
|
#68
02-23-2007, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. Army steps in
it took a couple of years to change Japanese "culture." it took a couple of years to change German "culture." it took a couple of months to fix South African "culture."
sure, the Iraq situation is not ideal, but it's on the right track. simply because it is tough doesn't mean the struggle should be conceded. once upon a time, when the US democrats were the party of freedom, one of their leaders made the point (paraphrasing) that human rights accumulate from the hand of god, not from the generosity of the state.
|
|
#69
02-23-2007, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: U.S. Army steps in
[ QUOTE ]
it took a couple of years to change Japanese "culture." it took a couple of years to change German "culture." it took a couple of months to fix South African "culture." sure, the Iraq situation is not ideal, but it's on the right track. [/ QUOTE ] I hope you know how funny those comparisons are.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
