28-04-2003 00:25									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What examples have the neo-cons sued to spread dmeocracy besides the use of military force? They have been in power 9had the ear of the president) for well over a year: besides invading Iraq, can anyone here give me a single concrete act they have taken to foster democracy in another way?

	28-04-2003 02:37									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

GePap - what reason leads you to believe that 1 year is enough time for the neo-cons to demonstrate all of their policy arsenal, and that it is enouhg time for you to judge them.

I remind you that one does not change his government every year, but rather 4 years, which is hardly enough time to build and later employ a stable single minded policy.And the neo-con group have only had influence for a year and a half, at best.

I simply don't get this lack of tolerance.

Like spiffor said - Ameirca can't be everywhere at once and win. Therefore the strategy taken by the neo-cons - affecting the world in stages, seems very valid and reasonable.

Infact, if as you expected, they during a single year would have tried both to use the military option on Iraq, use political and economical pressure on China and N. Korea and Syria and Saudi Arabi - then I would deem them incredibly stupid.

America can't fight in all fronts. That's why all the yelling about "why isn't someone doing something about all these nations besides Iraq" is ludicrous. The simple answer is that an action in Iraq is infact having a dettering political effect on the entire world. The military action has a much greater political aspect which is sent to N. Korea China and the Middle East.

This step also has a huge economical meaning for the middle east. It breaks up their oil tool. Now the foreign policy of western nations will be far less constrained by interests of keeping positive relations with oil-producing countries, and they are more likely to act according to the real values, instead of real politic ("you give me oil, and i will turn a blind eye towards your totalitarian rule, abuse of human rights, and training of terrorists").

Tell me, Gepap - can you give me any example of a single concrete act the western world has taken to foster democracy besides fighting Germany and Japan, during 1939-1945 ?

No.

Infact, they have done the opposite- they gave finiancial support to a communist dictatorship - the Soviet Union. This ought to be mind numbing for people. I can hear them screaming "aha! so you have no real concience! You claim you fight dictatorship but you fund the dictatorship friendly to you!"

This is again a simple minded view. It would have been completely wrong and silly for the UK and US to fight Nazism and Communism at the same time. Then they would have been likely to unite even more than they did in 1939 with the Molotov Ribantrop pact. This infact was a direct result of the US UK pressure on both Germany and USSR at the same time.

Instead, they increased their chances of winning by playing the dictatorships one against another - thus weakening them both. And yes, they were both weakened though it wasn't the ultimate result.

At first when war broke out between USSR and Germany, it seemed the Germans were winning and gaining strength. The huge war machine built by the USSR was decimated. This war machine was also about to unleash itself on Europe.

Then later Russia rebuilt it's strength and did conquer eastern Europe from the hands of the germans, but at that time, the Allies had built up enough strength to rescue Western Europe from the Communist clutches.



And as for all the talk of relativist morality - I think it's prepostrous. True, no one can really know if his moral system is best. I can't say scientifically, that freedom of thought, freedom of religion and civilian rights are truely better than the laws of the Sharia, dealing with respect, loving god and devoting oneself to good deeds.

But I do believe in my moral code and I will do what I can to ensure it becomes as much widely supported as possible - because the other side (those supporting Sharia law) are making the same efforts, and their moral code, has elements which are completely foreign and infact necessarily animus to my moral code.

If the muslim worldn't hadn't try to spread its beliefs and would have said "we live like this, you live like this" - fine by me. But it's not doing so. More and more muslim activists strive to spread Islam through the world.

Just listen to several preachers in western countries such as Britain and Germany. They have admitted that their goal is to achive power and create muslim law in Britain and Germany.

Why do I bleieve that my democratic liberalism is better? Because it's not exclusive. liberalism believes in getting as much views as possible. Sharia believes in getting as few "renegade" views as possible.

	28-04-2003 02:39									#33
	Remove this text

Bah - I hate my grammar after midnight.

	28-04-2003 08:06									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well said, Siro.

	28-04-2003 21:02									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Siro:

quote: Tell me, Gepap - can you give me any example of a single concrete act the western world has taken to foster democracy besides fighting Germany and Japan, during 1939-1945 ?

I am sorry., but this is an utterly absurd comparison. There are times when scale matters. The US just spent 75 billion (out of a 10 trillion dollar economy and a 2 trillion dollar budget) on the war in Iraq, which took about 5 months to get ready for, and 1 month to fight, and all that was done by 200,000 troops, about 160,000 American. So, the US spent 4% of its budget sending .07% of its population to fight. Comapre this to that fact that as of 1944, 50% of US GDP and almost 1/10 of its population was somehow directly tied to the war effort. I am sorry, but this difference is so absolutely absurd, it is painful to even think you consider it similar.

quote: This is again a simple minded view. It would have been completely wrong and silly for the UK and US to fight Nazism and Communism at the same time. Then they would have been likely to unite even more than they did in 1939 with the Molotov Ribantrop pact. This infact was a direct result of the US UK pressure on both Germany and USSR at the same time.

Yet another time in which historical comparison is so uttely wrong, since the difference is so absurd. Germany, Japan and the Soviet Unnion were great powers in the 1930's, powers with the ability to hurt the uS and UK and France, and hurt them bad. Iraq, well, Iraq wasn't a threat to the US, and is miniscule (both in size, population, wealth, size of military, military budget, hell , you name it) in comparison.

quote: And as for all the talk of relativist morality - I think it's prepostrous. True, no one can really know if his moral system is best. I can't say scientifically, that freedom of thought, freedom of religion and civilian rights are truely better than the laws of the Sharia, dealing with respect, loving god and devoting oneself to good deeds. But I do believe in my moral code and I will do what I can to ensure it becomes as much widely supported as possible - because the other side (those supporting Sharia law) are making the same efforts, and their moral code, has elements which are completely foreign and infact necessarily animus to my moral code.

First of all, the "other side" in this case, the Baathist party, did not follow Sharia Law, and in fact most of the enemies the neo-cons talk about, Cuba, Lybia, Syria, NK, well, they don't follow Sharia law. Obviosuly here the Neo-cons are trying to battle more than just the Islamist. Plus, the Neo-cons want to do me then spread moral codes (or perhaps less), they want to export a political form, which here in the west has been given moral overtones, and an economic system that has also been "moralized". That is prety darn ambitious, don;t you think? (even if we won;t compare it again to world war 2.....)

quote: Infact, if as you expected, they during a single year would have tried both to use the military option on Iraq, use political and economical pressure on China and N. Korea and Syria and Saudi Arabi - then I would deem them incredibly stupid.

Why? THere is little they can do agains't China, but they are trying political and economic pressure vs Syria (now) and NK (since october), though both are unlikely to work just like sanctions failed. BUt they are not exerting influence were they have it. The US backs SA, Egypt, Israel and others with large sums of money: that gives the US leverage with these governments, yet all the US has doen is asked Egypt to release one noted HR lawyer and dissident. That was good, but not enough.What ahrm can come to the Us by tryign to pressure Egypt and SA into political reforms by threatening to withhold foms of aid that would be worse than what they could face by the invasion and occupation of a state?

I honestly don't understand such a mind-set.