Should the US intervene to promote democracy? (Page 2)

Comrade_: "But what about the “humanitarian crisis” in Syria where “they are” killing their own people is occurring? Same for Iran." -I'm not sure, but there are politics involved. The US was/is an ally of Syrian, though they oppose to the way the President is dealing with the protest. But also keep in mind that the Syrian government still have strong support of some of its people & their military is as one with the government.

davidk14: .

Caveman,

There is no difference to the so called “pro-democracy” movements in Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iran or Egypt. Each one of those governments are either a Monarchy – A government by a single ruler…Aristocracy – A government ruled by nobleman…Oligarchy – a government ruled by a few persons…Theocracy – A government by religious leaders, or a Dictatorship – A government by people who have seized power by force usually be military force. None of them were freely elected.

The revolts in Algeria spread across the Middle East to Egypt, the largest Muslim country in the Middle East.

The US supported the uprising in Egypt not by the majority of the population, but by the minority of the population. There were not 40 million people protesting in the streets which would have been half the population….maybe 100 thousand protested? Maybe even 200 thousand? How about even maybe a million? How about we say that a million people rioting in the streets demanding change. That’s 1/80th of the population. The military, unlike the police of Egypt, refused to fire on the rioters and eventually, after decades of supporting Mubarak, decided enough was enough and sided with change. We don’t know what that change will produce, hopefully not a regime more restrictive than Mubarak’s. Time will tell. Recently, within the last week or two, the military did fire on demonstrators that were rioting because they wanted the military out of power sooner rather than later. The Muslim Brotherhood was illegal in Egypt but is now probably going to be heavily involved with or perhaps the next government. This will be the worst case scenario.

Now let’s move over to Syria.

Your comment, “But also keep in mind that the Syrian government still has strong support of some of its people & their military is as one with the government.” Syria, like Lybia did use and is continuing to use its military to quiet the same unrest that Egypt had encountered. However, the US is not supporting these “pro-democracy” movement “rebels”. You suggested that the US is friends with Syria. Nope. They are on the terrorist watch list as a country supporting terrorism. Yet we do not support the pro-democracy movement as we did in Egypt?

Now let’s move over to Libya.

That country did use the military to quiet the same unrest that Egypt had encountered. The US did and is using military force to support the “rebels”.

The US supports the “pro-democracy” movement in Egypt and currently is using huge military assets to support the “pro-democracy” movement (ie: humanitarian assistance) in Libya, then it must support ALL pro-democracy movements anywhere. It cannot pick and choose and decide not to support the pro-democracy movements especially where the country is using it's military against its people.

.

FogofWar: younlee; the west has called for intervention in Burma; including Canada; the UK, the US, and Australia. There has been opposition to it; and it wouldn't appear to be in benefit to us to intervene. Dwindling foreign relations and exhausting military resources and budget over a place that would not provide any replenishment to it will only wear us down; and end in defeat. Look at the Danish in Afghanistan. They simply couldn't afford it anymore. It wasn't worth it to them. It is unfortunate that we cannot help everyone.

Caveman; nowhere did I express sole duty of intervening for liberalization to be in the hands of the US. I simply posed a question of whether the US should intervene to promote democracy. Looking at the statistics; and the wealth generated; the stability created; and the number of civilian casualties eliminated; I would suggest that if the US IS to intervene; it should be done for the purpose of liberalizing a nation; and not just eliminating a threat to the stability of the US and world economy.

"If an organisation such as the UN for example were given the power to "promote" democracy then it will be more accepted as being an organisation without a Political agenda."

Yup; there sure were no political agendas about the UN's 'promotion' of democracy in Rwanda was there?

If an organization such as the UN were given this power; the world would be down right fz@*^@!

God help us if we ever have to rely on the United Nations for peace.

"The US is falling apart economically and can not support a "promotion" of democracy."

Perhaps you should reread what I pasted from the debate; as the statistics confirm the opposite. promotion of democracy INCREASES economic growth and wealth. If the US were to invest $8.5 billion into democratizing a nation; it would wield a gain of $75 billion.


"When dealing with cultures that are not with a democratic form of government, you have to keep in mind that these are deep rooted cultures & their government will reflect this and not everyone in those countries will support democracy."

Absolutely agreed.


"Wouldn't it be democratic to include the world in this decision than to give that authority to ONE country (since the OP only stated the US) ?"

You are taking the concept too literally caveman. Nowhere has it even been insinuated that the US is the only authority for this. It is nothing more than a simple reflection on the success of intervention for the purpose of democracy versus the intervention for economic or strategic interest.

"The issue is more than if Democracy is good or bad, it is IF the US should be given the authority to intervene to promote a form of government onto another country."

The issue is not in regards to whether democracy is good or bad at all. The issue is in regards to whether people understand that the US does not waste their money in foreign nations while ignoring the problems at home. US wealth is generated by promoting democracy. It is also in regards to the level of success if this is the original intent; and not US control. The question is essentially asking; should the US intervene to promote democracy; or to promote US interest? Or it can be taken to mean; should the US intervene to promote democracy; or ignore the world and focus on themselves. It's not a literal question of who should take responsibility for intervening. It is merely a question to ponder the figures of.

FogofWar: "(Fog's posting from the website shows the view of the person who lost the debate, the person who won the debate made some good points too, but I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and copy&paste)"

My posting only shows the first argument; which sadly; was the only post that contained much in the form of documented statistics. The debates are voted on by users; so it is often a matter of how the person voting feels on the issue more than who presented the better argument. The 'winner' of that debate relied solely on two conflicts; Iraq and Afghanistan; neither who's original expressed intent was to promote democracy; so neither is relevant….not to mention his 'facts' are merely opinions; and often inaccurate at that.


David said: "If anyone is looking for a simple yes or no answer, it is not that easy to answer even though many might think it is."

Exactly. This topic is not to determine in black and white what the right actions should always be; but merely to ponder the reality of the concept of intervention; and what the specified goal SHOULD be; as opposed to what it is. For example; had the US went into Iraq with the expressed intent of promoting democracy; not only would they have had a better chance of support on the home front; but they also would have seen more support internationally; and there is a better chance of success.

"The opposite of a democratic government are five basic types of government: Monarchy – A government by a a single ruler…"

There are exceptions to this. I live in a monarchy; we are democratic, in fact so much so; that we are seen by many as one of the freest nations. Monarchies that have a constitution granting the freedom of speech, and an electoral cabinet to represent the public to the monarch are a form of democracy; Constitutional Monarchy.


"When a government is abusing its citizens and talk will not stop the abuse as in Darfur, who should stop the carnage? The UN? That’s not reality."

Actually David; the reality is that the UN IS involved in Darfur. This shows how effective the UN is in reality.



Caveman asked: "Should it live up to its professed desires for democracy or support the Egyptian president for fear of loss of influence and what might follow his overthrow?"

This is exactly why this topic is more of a rhetoric pondering. It is not black and white. If the US MUST intervene, should the US intervene for the purpose of democracy? In all likelihood yes; however, if they do; then they lose an ally who has prevented war against Israel; the US' strongest ally in the region; and they also loose control over the Suez Canal, that had, up until the revolution, contained the Iranian Navy from entering the Mediterranean Sea. If the US intervenes for democracy; it risks growing it's rival Iran in strength; in which case; one must ask if this was actually an intervention in the best overall interest of democracy worldwide?


"(I would be interested in knowing the names of the countries that requested support from the US.)"

Afghanistan; Kuwait, Libya…etc.



"It cannot pick and choose and decide not to support the pro-democracy movements especially where the country is using it's military against its people."

Perhaps a strategic element is being considered in ignoring Syria and Iran. Both are on the watchlist for supporting terrorism. Both have been confirmed to have funded terrorist regimes. Both are enemies of US allies and interest in the Middle East. Maybe the objective is to let these nations crumble themselves before moving in. I wouldn't say Syria poses a huge threat; but the US is currently in no condition to take on Iran. Syria's allegiance to Iran may also play a major factor in this; as US involvement there would likely get Iran involved in a very negative way.

younlee: Fog>>>>younlee; the west has called for intervention in Burma; including Canada; the UK, the US, and Australia. There has been opposition to it; and it wouldn't appear to be in benefit to us to intervene. Dwindling foreign relations and exhausting military resources and budget over a place that would not provide any replenishment to it will only wear us down; and end in defeat. Look at the Danish in Afghanistan. They simply couldn't afford it anymore. It wasn't worth it to them. It is unfortunate that we cannot help everyone.

So because Burma cant 'replenish' us they dont deserve democracy, the people of Burma who clearly want democracy can go whistle in the wind because they have nothing to give us!!! Lets all hope and pray Burma discover some oil or a vast mineral reserve then.

davidk14: .

I have to agree with Younlee...You MUST stand up for ALL who want democracy.

.

FogofWar: I don't disagree with your opinion at all. Yes; Burma deserves democracy…unfortunately we can't do anything about it. All we can do is lobby to our municipal representatives and get as much voice heard to our government that we demand action. It is still better to help those we can than not help any at all because we can't help everyone.

younlee: Positive action is the answer Fog but what pisses a lot of people of is that we only seem to help or intervene in countries that have oil or other valuble assets or those that are strategically important!!

Comrade_: FogofWar: "Caveman; nowhere did I express sole duty of intervening for liberalization to be in the hands of the US. I simply posed a question of whether the US should intervene to promote democracy. Looking at the statistics; and the wealth generated; the stability created; and the number of civilian casualties eliminated; I would suggest that if the US IS to intervene; it should be done for the purpose of liberalizing a nation; and not just eliminating a threat to the stability of the US and world economy."

Your topic solely said the US (no other country was mentioned or insinuated). That question posted said that ONLY the US were intervening since it neither mentioned the words "Western" or other vague words to mean another country. Common sense. Is this not a serious idea? or did you just wanted to copy & paste the debate from the other site?
Wealth generated by whom?
Stability by whom?
Civilian casualties elimated?

All these are not GUARANTEED should the US be given permission to 'intervene' into another country.

Concerning your UN comment, I know you're illerate but I didn't know it was that bad or maybe while you were pulling out quotes instead of understanding the context it was in you lost the point. My statement (I'll repeat esp. for you )
"-Leaving one country to be the one to "promote" democracy brings serious concern for the method this country will be "promoting" this democracy and questions will arise about their motives, esp. the sensitive issues of Oil. If an organisation such as the UN for example were given the power to "promote" democracy then it will be more accepted as being an organisation without a Political agenda.
-The US is falling apart economically and can not support a "promotion" of democracy."

as I explained to DavidK, I said the UN as an EXAMPLE, since it is on paper an organisation run by different representitives of the world. (You know what an example is?). If an organisation were chosen inplace of the US to "promote" democracy there will be little room for 'conflict of interest' and there will be more transperacy. The US has been charged with having Political agendas.
Concerning the economy, perhaps you should use common sense and think deep. You spend on Military with the hope that in the future this country that you "stabilise" will promote Economic growth in the US, but you forget the lenght of TIME "STABILITY" takes, the period of TIME the investment will really start to profit. While you wait on hopes of future investments that you're not sure to receive it will still depend on the actual Government that is put in place, what is happening NOW is a spiralling economy this is what is present.
No Fog, I'm taking the debate for what it is with a realistic eye to it. What you presented is very clear. If you want a serious debate then you focus on every aspect of what you presented. If you said "should outside government intervene to promote democracy" or "should democracy be promoted" then both are vague.
and concerning the quote on Egypt, that was from a BBC article as I stated.

""(I would be interested in knowing the names of the countries that requested support from the US.)"

Afghanistan; Kuwait, Libya…etc."
-hmm from my knowledge the Afghanistan people did not make a request support from the US.
Keep in mind that my request was to based on what Davidk said: " Should the US ignore the request of the people of a country that want to have a democratic form of government but the dictatorship is brutally keeping the will of the people under foot? As I said earlier, the US has been involved in both of these scenarios and they became very messy. Currently, Egypt and Syria come to mind."
I wanted just names of these countries. I pointed to him the details of Egypt & Syria.

Comrade_: Another question I'd like a name of a country where "US intervention (or any other country) to promote democracy" by military force has worked to stabalised that country and the country is currently successful. Only as an example.

And are you saying that the US should only intervene when it is of benefit to them?...this brings 'conflict of interest' to mind.

Comrade_: younlee
VIP Member Lvl. 5
Positive action is the answer Fog but what pisses a lot of people of is that we only seem to help or intervene in countries that have oil or other valuble assets or those that are strategically important!!

...That's a good point, that is what I mean that it is questionable to put the US (or one country) in charge of "intervening" to "promoting democracy" or it will turn into a modern day crusade. You have to think things out realistically, not as a patriot.

Comrade_: PS.
I didn't point to the UN as being the ones to promote democracy but I saw this interesting point on their website:

"Promoting democracy - The United Nations has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections, including those held in Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua and South Africa. It has provided electoral advice, assistance, and monitoring of results."

davidk14: .

Caveman said: "(I would be interested in knowing the names of the countries that requested support from the US.)"

David responds:

According to the US Department of State Foreign Aid Budget for 2010:

Without cut and pasting dozens of pages of information, this budget is in the billions and billions and billions of dollars. Approximately 23.2% of the total funds are spent on military items, 76.8% of the total funds are spent on economic development and humanitarian aid for approximately 100+ countries receiving US aid.

www
state.gov/documents/
organization/122513.pdf

.

Comrade_: DavidK, you seem mistaken by the question, I will remind you again:

DavidK said:"Should the US ignore the request of the people of a country that want to have a democratic form of government but the dictatorship is brutally keeping the will of the people under foot? As I said earlier, the US has been involved in both of these scenarios and they became very messy."

Caveman asked: "I would be interested in knowing the names of the countries that requested support from the US."

It was based on your statement.

Comrade_: ok, nvm looking for it.

Given the points to this argument and how most of the issues aren't addressed. I'd stick to my thoughts, atleast until there is a proper structure i.e. a special organisation to "promote" democracy, in a way that reflects what democracy is.

FogofWar: "Positive action is the answer Fog but what pisses a lot of people of is that we only seem to help or intervene in countries that have oil or other valuble assets or those that are strategically important!!"

Absolutely. What pisses people off even more still; is that the UN has a track record of throwing others under the bus in the name of making it look like the UN tried to help these resource free nations; while using the nation they threw under the bus as the scapegoat to take the blame for the fact that the UN had no intention of saving a single life; but every intention of making a political appearance to be helping.

One need not look past Rwanda to see this entirely. The UN didn't have any intent on helping the people there. They used Canada; knowing that our Liberal government; who was in the process of 'transforming' our military from a defence department, to a tiny peacekeeping contingent; had absolutely no choice but to accept the role as force commander. Due to cut backs in funds; they could not send their forces; but only supply the General for command. The UN forced us to commit troops because 'how would it look to other nations if you won't even trust your men to this General?'. In doing this; they had us front a large percentage of our force to a mission they intended to fail from the beginning. They sent General Dallaire in with a group of unarmed 'peacekeepers' to rip around in little beat up jeeps in a demilitarized zone in which the force there to protect this peace had no means of doing so. They sent soldiers with no ammunition to guard the former Belgian embassy; which was to be the ground in which the transformation of the government would take place. When shit hit the fan; and the mission collapsed (who would have seen that coming hey?), the UN ordered Dallaire to fold all his peacekeeping troops into the former embassy; which was a hotel now, and ordered them NOT to engage outside the chain link fence no matter what happened. For 100 days; our soldiers stood there; watching as Hutu rebels hacked and slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsis; many women and children, so young their eyes weren't even open yet; while the UN ordered them to do nothing but watch. When news broke out of what is now known as the Rwandan Genocide; the UN pinned the failure on Dallaire's lack of strategic planning and preparation for the mission.


Yes, it pisses people off that we don't help poorer nations…it pisses people off even more still that on top of that; when we do actually try and help; the UN has us make things worse.



Caveman said: "That question posted said that ONLY the US were intervening…"

The question reads: "Should the US intervene to promote democracy."

No mention of the word 'only' appears anywhere in that statement. Think what you want; you are assuming again.

"Common sense."

Clearly you have none.


"Wealth generated by whom?"

The global economy. In other words; everyone.

"Stability by whom?"

The nation being intervened upon…and the nations which were at risk by said nation.

"Civilian casualties elimated?"

Eliminated no, reduced yes. Perhaps I should have worded it better:

'Looking at the statistics; and the wealth generated; the stability created; and the number of civilian casualties eliminated…'

looking at the number of civilian casualties eliminated. I mean the number that would be eliminated; not to say all would; but looking at the number that would; which would be quite high. To clarify; I mean the number of civilian casualties that would be reduced.

"All these are not GUARANTEED should the US be given permission to 'intervene' into another country."

This has nothing to do with permission; it has to do with the objective and intent of intervention. In the case of liberalization; these numbers are 75% successful. Not a guarantee; but extremely high.

FogofWar: "If an organisation such as the UN for example were given the power to "promote" democracy then it will be more accepted as being an organisation without a Political agenda.
-The US is falling apart economically and can not support a "promotion" of democracy."

The UN is a political organization; and the UN demands intervention be dealt with politically; meaning they spend months on end writing up resolutions while innocent people are being slaughtered. Then they discuss possible strategies all the while more innocents are being murdered. Then they decide who to command; then they approve this; then they allow the force commander to establish his plan; then they decide if they like it; then they get the force commander to request what he needs (and in the UN that is beyond a hassle. Imagine requesting troops; and not having ammo). Once all this is in place; the UN lays out Rules of Engagement that will not hinder the 'rights' and 'freedoms' of the people involved. The UN seems to think that Gaddafi's 'right' to kill his own people merits as much protection as the rebel's 'right' to live freely.

The UN was a poor example on your part. I understand what you are trying to say; but the UN is a poor example.


"You spend on Military with the hope that in the future this country that you "stabilise" will promote Economic growth in the US, but you forget the lenght of TIME "STABILITY" takes."

I forget nothing. These statistics were gathered by Mark Peceny from the University of New Mexico. Perhaps you would like to tell this Doctor in Political Science that he is incorrect by your count in the field of Political Science. He didn't forget the time it takes; time was calculated into the formula to determine gains from intervening. Over ten years a $75 billion dollar increase will result from spending $8.5 billion.

If you would like to tell this Doctor that you feel you know more about him in his field; by all mean caveman. His phone number and email are available on this page:

http://www.unm.edu/~polsci/faculty.htm#pecenyMark


"Afghanistan; Kuwait, Libya…etc."
-hmm from my knowledge the Afghanistan people did not make a request support from the US."

I guess we know the limited extent of your knowledge then. Ever asked anyone from Afghanistan? Try it.

Reference the Northern Alliance. Look it up caveman; you might learn a thing or two. I know that will be new for you; but go on; give it a shot.

"Keep in mind that my request was to based on what Davidk said:"

I love how you ignore an answer to your question when it comes from someone other than who you were asking. I answered your question; it matters not who it was directed to; the answer is there…just like the answer to your question of where the proof is of Islamic governments funding terrorism.

"Another question I'd like a name of a country where "US intervention (or any other country) to promote democracy" by military force has worked to stabalised that country and the country is currently successful. Only as an example."

Sierra Leone.

"And are you saying that the US should only intervene when it is of benefit to them?...this brings 'conflict of interest' to mind."

No, not at all. In fact I have stated the opposite twice now.


"That's a good point, that is what I mean that it is questionable to put the US (or one country) in charge of "intervening" to "promoting democracy…"

No one has said the US should be/would be/is in charge genius. Reread the title; and think on it for a while. I would hate for you to get into another argument over you trying to tell me what I meant by the blatantly obvious words that I typed; by implying that I intended to mean other words in which I never used. Seriously caveman; you need to open your eyes a little.

FogofWar: "Promoting democracy - The United Nations has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections, including those held in Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua and South Africa. It has provided electoral advice, assistance, and monitoring of results."

And what wonderful results too.

FogofWar: "Given the points to this argument and how most of the issues aren't addressed. I'd stick to my thoughts, atleast until there is a proper structure i.e. a special organisation to "promote" democracy, in a way that reflects what democracy is."

I agree there should be an organization for this. The UN definitely sucks at it…and nowhere have I ever stated that this role should be placed in the hands of the US. Again you assume this. This topic serves to show that selfish objectives wield failure in comparison to democratic objectives. The UN's job is supposed to be to provide resolutions and sanctions; and have members of it carry them out. Int his case; it can be a number of countries; often including the US. Whatever the resolution is; be it to prevent Hussein from developing WMDs; or to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan; the purpose of this topic shows that such a mission would be more successful if the expressed goal of the contributing nations is to spread democracy; and not to achieve the intervening nation's goals only. The US was the example because the statistics were from there; and that was the topic of discussion on debate.org. That is all; and no caveman; there is not more to it.

Comrade_: The question reads: "Should the US intervene to promote democracy."
-so This question (in common sense) shows another country huh? I never said "ONLY" appears in the statement. But the statement does show the US..unless I failed English and there were other countries insinuated


"Wealth generated by whom?"

The global economy. In other words; everyone."

-No. This is not guaranteed, The global economy is falling apart and it has nothing to do with non-democratic governments.

"Stability by whom?"
The nation being intervened upon…and the nations which were at risk by said nation."

-No, stability doesn't come by military intervention (as you can see in the example of Afghanistan)


'Looking at the statistics; and the wealth generated; the stability created; and the number of civilian casualties eliminated…'



"All these are not GUARANTEED should the US be given permission to 'intervene' into another country."
This has nothing to do with permission; it has to do with the objective and intent of intervention."

-I don't go on word of mouth. If you don't understand your own debate, then it is no fault of mine. You are asking permission when you say "Should the US intervene..."

Yan26: Democracy is basically a Western concept based on Western culture and may not be necessarily the best form of governance in all places. There are places in the world which had a non democratic form of government which still performed very well. For eg: Loya Jirga in Afghanistan,Panchayat system in India.
There are also places where after Western forms of government were imposed there was a lot more political instability Eg: Rwanda,Afghanistan.

So why do you think Democracy is the best form of government?

What about apartheid South Africa? That was a democratically elected government too. So is intervention required in democracies which have a bad human rights record?
Or Greece? Should the US intervene in a badly managed democracy too?

What I am trying to say is what is your basis for saying that the absence of democracy necessarily implies a bad state of affairs where intervention is required?
Or is having democracy the only standard of judging a government?

Comrade_: "The UN was a poor example on your part. I understand what you are trying to say; but the UN is a poor example."

The UN is a good example, I suggest you reread where I posted that UN as an example. It is an International organisation, where the countries involved has a "democratic" say. The works of the UN was not the example only what it represents, that is, an organisation. I used it to get my 3rd point across, "to the US (or any one country) being the one(s) to 'promote' democracy."

Comrade_: "Should the US "intervene" to "promote" democracy?"

point 3) Done. The US/any one country will not be the ones chosen to intervene to promote Democracy.



Now Yan, posted another interesting flaw. You can answer him, keep in mind that there are several functioning non-democratic countries & non-democratic countries that are not in the middle east.
So your points must be suitable for all non-democratic countries and not limited to the middle east/non-functioning non-democratic governments.

FogofWar: "The question reads: "Should the US intervene to promote democracy."
-so This question (in common sense) shows another country huh? I never said "ONLY" appears in the statement. But the statement does show the US..unless I failed English and there were other countries insinuated."

The only thing insinuated is what you are saying.

it reads should the US intervene to promote democracy. It does NOT say should the US be the ONLY nation allowed to intervene. It does NOT say should the US be the LEADING NATION of intervening. It does not say should the US intervene where it pleases for democracy.

IF the US is going to intervene; then it should be for the purpose of democratizing a nation; and NOT for personal gain.

Again; I stress the example of Iraq, why? Because the US was already going there anyways. No question about it…they invaded in 2003. We know for a fact they were going to invade. This question poses the thought; should it have been for democratizing Iraq INSTEAD of removing their capabilities? Stop trying to tell others what they said based on how you interpret their idea. You clearly do need to work on your English skills if you cannot understand why you are being foolish about this.


""Wealth generated by whom?"

The global economy. In other words; everyone."

-No. This is not guaranteed, The global economy is falling apart and it has nothing to do with non-democratic governments."

Again, if you would like to tell Dr. Mark Peceny that he is wrong; feel free. His email and phone number are in the link provided:

http://www.unm.edu/~polsci/faculty.htm#pecenyMark

""Stability by whom?"
The nation being intervened upon…and the nations which were at risk by said nation."

-No, stability doesn't come by military intervention (as you can see in the example of Afghanistan)"

And you know based on what experience based on military intervention? The lack of stability created from our occupation in Afghanistan is due entirely to our methods of fighting a 'civilized' war. Rules of Engagement are supposed to guide war; not hinder it. I suggest to you to read Sun Tzu: The Art of War, and Carl von Clausewitz: On War. We have created more stability in Afghanistan than the nation has had in 33 years; and the only reason in which we have not succeeded by this date is the lack of ability to act due to incompetent regulations laid out by lawyers and politicians in the UN who have never been in war or Afghanistan.

"-I don't go on word of mouth. If you don't understand your own debate, then it is no fault of mine. You are asking permission when you say "Should the US intervene…""

May I suggest going back to grade six Language Arts classes??

Yan, democracy is not a western concept. It is an ancient Greek concept. It comes from the Greek words Demos, meaning people; and Kratos, meaning power. The political instability that rocked Afghanistan was communism. Our democratic goal is to re-establish the Loya Jirga (which by definition, although a democratic agenda; may be an example of this topic not applying to all; or else is an example to suggest that intervening for democracy is intervening for their free right to decide on a system) in Afghanistan. It was not the Western governments that failed in Rwanda. That failure was 100% the doing of the United Nations. Western Nations demanded action. It was Canada that took command; and it was the UN that ordered Canada to allow it to happen. Had General Dallaire done the right thing and protected the 800,000 killed by engaging the handful of rebel forces, he would have stood trial as a war criminal. To this day; he wishes he had.

FogofWar: "So why do you think Democracy is the best form of government?"

The "western concept" of democracy you are thinking of is Liberal democracy. Democracy is the system of granting all citizens equal say. It is the best system because it is the fairest.

The Apartheid was not democratic. It did NOT give ALL people equal say. It was a racist agenda; and is a thing of the past.

"So is intervention required in democracies which have a bad human rights record?
Or Greece? Should the US intervene in a badly managed democracy too?"

Absolutely.

"What I am trying to say is what is your basis for saying that the absence of democracy necessarily implies a bad state of affairs where intervention is required?"

No one is. This topic does not say the US MUST intervene to promote democracy where there is none. It asks if they SHOULD intervene with the intent being democracy. Like I have told caveman; do not read too much into this; as it is not a discussion of expansionism or US dominance. It is a topic that shows the success of interventions targeting democratizing nations OVER not targeting it.


"Or is having democracy the only standard of judging a government?"

Not the only; but it definitely is the best.

"The UN is a good example, I suggest you reread where I posted that UN as an example."

I have read it several times. It was a poor example.

"It is an International organisation, where the countries involved has a "democratic" say."

It is an international organization; where select countries have more say than others; based on strength and size. It is based on drafting policy rather than action. It is a poor choice for such an example.

"The works of the UN was not the example only what it represents, that is, an organization."

It represents a political organization; not an action based organization. Again; I get what you are trying to say; but the UN is a poor example.