Thoughts on U.S. Democracy.

[SuperSaiya-jinGuy]

Well, If you have ever had to sit through a U.S History Class you may hear quite a bit the our country is "awsome" and "always" right. At least I did when our teacher glorified our government. We invade countries to turn thier governments into democracies. And tell everyone communism is bad, despotism is bad, Any country without a democratic government is ugly and wrong. But what makes ours' right? And do we have the right to make other countries follow our "shining" example?

Of course as you probably gathered by reading this I believe no on both. But i want to know what everyone thinks about it. Or yell about it. God damn I love reding these when people argue ;P

[Jimsween]

Mainly the fact that democracies kill way less people then the other two you listed. And also partially because democracy allows people to choose what they want to do, while they other two allow one person to choose what they want everyone else to do.

I'm sure this was a hot topic of debate around... 200 years ago, now its actually pretty obvious though.

[seventy-one]

What happened 200 years ago, was an amazing thing, and the fact that a government like this is still standing should be an example to the world, not what we do with our government, but the fact that we've gone from humble nation to world superpower in 200 years.

[jmaster306]

At 8/18/05 04:02 AM, seventy-one wrote: What happened 200 years ago, was an amazing thing, and the fact that a government like this is still standing should be an example to the world, not what we do with our government, but the fact that we've gone from humble nation to world superpower in 200 years.

Amazing? I call it luck. The only reason the US managed to survive on it's fledgling beginings is because of the relative emptyness of north america at the time. Yes, our freedoms had alot to do with the speed of our development but the truth still stands that we would have been no match against a powerful nation. It also helps that the land we settled in was rich with many natural resources not to mention with the mass immigration, our population growth was not limited to the national birth rate. Then there is always the contributions of both world wars. Without them, our growth would have surely been stunted, especially in the world standing. I mean hell, between those two wars the world's center of power (europe) was completely decimated leaving for alot of elbow room for the US to expand into.

What the US has accomplished in 200 years is astounding, but not exactly born solely from american might.

[seventy-one]

At 8/18/05 04:13 AM, jmaster306 wrote:
What the US has accomplished in 200 years is astounding, but not exactly born solely from american might.

True, but would it have happened with another government? There might have been several nations split in the extra land, who knows? But I don't think it would have been possible with a monarchy, or any other type of government.

[Demosthenez]

Lol, god forbid an American goverment class or history class puts a good spin on the US. I mean, hell ITS INCONCIEVABLE!

[jmaster306]

At 8/18/05 04:17 AM, seventy-one wrote:

At 8/18/05 04:13 AM, jmaster306 wrote:
What the US has accomplished in 200 years is astounding, but not exactly born solely from american might.

True, but would it have happened with another government? There might have been several nations split in the extra land, who knows? But I don't think it would have been possible with a monarchy, or any other type of government.

Really, it's impossible to even speculate in a casual debate such as this. There are just too many variables to consider in evaluating if it would have been possible or not. We can however look at our own history and point out conflicts in which our freedoms helped solve and use that as probably cause for our success.

[hired-goon]

At 8/18/05 03:57 AM, Jimsween wrote: Mainly the fact that democracies kill way less people then the other two you listed.

How long on average, does it take for a country that's lost many lives being bombed by the US during its 'conversion', to 'earn back' the lives it would otherwise have lost in that time if it was still dispotic / dictatorship / communist?

Infact, the glorious democracy that Iraq now is (to me) looks like it has a few years to go yet until anyone can say "it was worth it".

[Slizor]

Mainly the fact that democracies kill way less people then the other two you listed. And also partially because democracy allows people to choose what they want to do, while they other two allow one person to choose what they want everyone else to do.

A study done by the economist Amartya Sen compared India and China, their population and their development. He found that because of the reforms made in China during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution (which killed a fair amount of people) it had actually killed less people than India. India, through sheer apathy to the plight of the poor, diseased and starved, was responsible for more deaths.

[BrickMurus]

For those who wish to get a good bearing on the Democratic state of America, and the mindset of Americans, I suggest you read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, a rather unread classic yet, but rather good. Not to mention the fact that some of the points observed in this book are still true to this day.

[Redwrath]

At 8/18/05 11:40 AM, BrickMurus wrote: For those who wish to get a good bearing on the Democratic state of America, and the mindset of Americans, I suggest you read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

Your right on the money. Don't forget to read The March of Folly by Barbara W. Tuchman.
It talks about historical wars all over the world and the governments's follies.

[CorpusInvictus]

Everyone should read Guns Germs and Steel, that book's a real keeper, then watch 12 Monkeys, and eat a WHOLE megabucket to yourself, now that's a night to remember. On another note, perhaps people are happier in dictatorships rather than democracies. My reasoning is, in dictatorships you know for sure your opinion matters and you can't make a difference, in democracies, they tell you that you can change things but in fact you are as worthless as some kurd in Iraq.

[BrickMurus]

At 8/18/05 12:00 PM, CorpusInvictus wrote: Everyone should read Guns Germs and Steel

Yes, such factors are guns, germs, and steel in our world.

On another note, perhaps people are happier in dictatorships rather than democracies.

Maybe you should say monarchy instead of dictatorships, because most people do not like dictators. I personally like monarchies, the trouble is, keeping the right kind of people in charge, instead of some whack job named Nero.

My reasoning is, in dictatorships you know for sure your opinion matters and you can't make a difference, in democracies, they tell you that you can change things but in fact you are as worthless as some kurd in Iraq.

What you saying about the Kurds, do not make one come over and kick your ass. I would not exactly call the Kurds worthless, due to the fact that they are a people who are spread out amoung many countries and wish to form their own.

[CorpusInvictus]

I wasn't saying anything bad about Kurds, personally I don't see anyone as 'worthless', I meant as a Kurd under Sadam Hussein, seeing as he treated them pretty badly, I could also of compared this with Jews in late 1930s Germany, but whatever, sorry if I caused offence.

[BrickMurus]

At 8/18/05 12:24 PM, CorpusInvictus wrote: I wasn't saying anything bad about Kurds, personally I don't see anyone as 'worthless', I meant as a Kurd under Sadam Hussein, seeing as he treated them pretty badly, I could also of compared this with Jews in late 1930s Germany, but whatever, sorry if I caused offence.

Actually, for Sadam, no one had any real woth, kinda the same with Hitler, because, Hitler was really messed up in the head. Though the Jews did play a good scapegoat role to blame problems on.

[Jimsween]

At 8/18/05 09:05 AM, hired_goon wrote: How long on average, does it take for a country that's lost many lives being bombed by the US during its 'conversion', to 'earn back' the lives it would otherwise have lost in that time if it was still dispotic / dictatorship / communist?

About a year. Your safer being bombed by the US than driving a car.

Infact, the glorious democracy that Iraq now is (to me) looks like it has a few years to go yet until anyone can say "it was worth it".

Yep, and weve got plenty of time. It's not like the world is ending anytime soon.

[Jimsween]

At 8/18/05 10:08 AM, Slizor wrote: A study done by the economist Amartya Sen compared India and China, their population and their development. He found that because of the reforms made in China during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution (which killed a fair amount of people) it had actually killed less people than India. India, through sheer apathy to the plight of the poor, diseased and starved, was responsible for more deaths.

Do you have any secondary sources for this? Or even a primary one? I'm curious of the exact details of it.

And is this over the entire history of India as a democracy vs. a small period of time in China?

And finally, arguments could be made downplaying both the universal sufferage of India and exaggerating that of China's.

Nevertheless, the argument is not that democracy will never kill people, it's that it has a much better track record than everything else, and doesn't rely on complete chance to have prosperity.

[Draconias]

How long on average, does it take for a country that's lost many lives being bombed by the US during its 'conversion', to 'earn back' the lives it would otherwise have lost in that time if it was still dispotic / dictatorship / communist?

Well, if you consider Iraq:
During Saddam's reign, the average death toll per month was 10,000 people.
During the American bombings, less than 200 people died per month.
In the 2 years since the war started, less than 6,000 Iraqis have died in the fighting.

Since the American Invasion began, 234,000 lives have been 'saved' that would otherwise have been lost under the government Iraq had before. These lives were given freely, so there is no "earning back" required.

Infact, the glorious democracy that Iraq now is (to me) looks like it has a few years to go yet until anyone can say "it was worth it".

You obviously haven't been paying attention, then.

Did you see the fork of the Tigris and Euphrates, where thousands of the most ancient wetlands have been rehabilitated in the past 2 years after Saddam drained them and nearly obliterated an entire culture built around them?

Did you see the newly-constructed power plants all over Iraq that replaced the jurry-rigged, ramshackle, barely-maintable plants that the operators barely kept running before, especially in places like Baghdad?

Did you see the democratic elections held all over Iraq for writing their own constitution?

Did you see the major sanitation infrastructure that has been constructed all over Iraq to replace ditches on the side of roads?

Did you see Saddam's statue crashing down as hundreds of Iraqis gloried in their new freedom to literally throw down the dictator who opressed them for so many years? If this last one wasn't worth it, you can't deny any of the above weren't a worthwhile accomplishment.

[Gunter45]

At 8/18/05 10:34 PM, Draconias wrote: stuff

Holy shit, did someone write about the positive outcomes of the Iraqi war on the NG BBS?

Okay, I've recovered from the shock. Yes Draconias, there was a great deal of good that was accomplished by the US invasion of Iraq. However, was it our place to go into a country and start a war? I believe that we meddle in too many countries afairs and even if our intentions are good, we're still a foreign people that are coming in and messing with other countries internal politics. I do believe that Saddam was an out-right evil dictator who needed to be overthrown, however, I also feel that it was the Iraqis responsibility to that themselves. It may just be because I feel that we have too many issues to deal with domestically to try to solve everyone else's problem, or it may be that I don't like the idea of America getting caught up in a Catch-22 when we get lambasted when we intervene in a conflict and we get villified when we don't, or it may just be because I don't like the idea of having a sovereign nation completely dependant on us no matter how long, it's not good for either party.

I think we picked a bad time to invade, I think we should have firmed up our intelligence on whether or not Iraq was a threat to the US. If we could have established that, I feel that an invasion would have been acceptable and overthrowing Saddam would have been a key part in dismantling the threat, however, not only was the intelligence shaky at the beginning of the war, we also looked stupid when we were unable to find substantial evidence of any weapons. There might still be weapons in Iraq, it's entirely possible, but the fact is, the media has already had a field day with the, thus far, lack of WMDs and it really gave us a black eye.

[Arnino-Storm]

Democracy, in order to evolve and survive properly, would probably need more than only the two same party for three hundred years. Well, closer to the two hundred, but that's not important. There are independant parties, and independant candidates and all, but they're not important enough to change much. No matter how much the party changes over time, no matter how different they are (or aren't), there still are only two sets of opinions. That put things in a state of continual duality: right vs left, black vs white, north vs south, friends vs enemies, etc. It leaves little place for a middle ground or a third path. And it tend to create a climate of continual conflict. While still democratic, it's not as much as it could be.

And, on American Foreign Affairs, there has still been no official apology for Lumumba, Chile or any of the fucked-up things they did during the Cold War and the years following. I'm not sure wether they did or not about Vietnam. As it stands, the mess in Irak is really not that surprising. They could have made it really good, Iraki were glad to be free from Saddam. But the way things were handled there...

Sad indeed.