democratization...

[cfear]

who thinks the US has an obligation to actively promote the spread of democracy? who thinks the US has no obligation to actively promote democracy, but rather should passively endorse the spread of democracy? or, who thinks democracy sucks.

[Love As Arson]

No, the US should not be an imperialist power.

[notoaststereo]

i think they should passivley spread democracy and not force it up people asses. or not even spread it at all. and just be content with how they are a democracy

[cfear]

No, the US should not be an imperialist power.

Does active promotion equate to imperialism? If so, why? Intelligent discussions are enhanced by warrants, not just claims.

[Love As Arson]

Active promotion by way of force or economic intimidation for one's own interest is imperialism.

[cfear]

Active promotion by way of force or economic intimidation for one's own interest is imperialism.

I'm not saying that I disagree, but how have you come to this conclusion? Imperialism technically has to do with the spread of, and maintenance of, an empire. How have you arrived at the conclusion that (a) the US promotes democracy only to serve its own self interest and (b) how does promoting a system of government equate to imperialist policy? I would like to understand what has made you believe that. What authors, philosophers, etc have helped you come to that conclusion. Otherwise this is just a simple conversation and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Oh, active promotion is promotion by force or economic sanctions; passive promotion is promotion through indirect methods.

[tambam]

I don't think they have any business doing that. The US should worry about itself, and let other countries worry about themselves unless they personally invite the US to come in.

[Love As Arson]

I'm not saying that I disagree, but how have you come to this conclusion? Imperialism technically has to do with the spread of, and maintenance of, an empire.
It does not necessarily have to be an empire in the sense of Rome. It may refer to influencing the politics and economy of various countries.
How have you arrived at the conclusion that (a) the US promotes democracy only to serve its own self interest and (b) how does promoting a system of government equate to imperialist policy?
It promotes democracy selectively. For example, in Latin America it has overthrown democratically elected governments ,under the guise of promoting democracy, because they differed ideologically from the US.
I would like to understand what has made you believe that. What authors, philosophers, etc have helped you come to that conclusion. Otherwise this is just a simple conversation and serves no purpose whatsoever.
Noam Chomsky and Vladimir Lenin.

[justinevans]

I think we should passively promote democracy or some form of it. However, I don't think we can promote it when we have civil rights issues here.

[justinevans]

I don't think they have any business doing that. The US should worry about itself, and let other countries worry about themselves unless they personally invite the US to come in.

Or the UN should actually serve a purpose.

[we are cured]

We are promoting democracy for our own self-purpose, though I wouldn't call it imperialism.

Democratic peace theory states that democracies aren't necessarily less warlike than non-democracies, but that democracies almost never fight democracies. So if you turn a country into a democracy, strategically speaking you have less to worry about - eventually.

[cfear]

We are promoting democracy for our own self-purpose, though I wouldn't call it imperialism.

Democratic peace theory states that democracies aren't necessarily less warlike than non-democracies, but that democracies almost never fight democracies. So if you turn a country into a democracy, strategically speaking you have less to worry about - eventually.

The Democratic Peace Theory is bunk though. I could pull cards from when I did debate in high school, but I'm too lazy and have class in thirty minutes.

[catscradle]

The Democratic Peace Theory is bunk though. I could pull cards from when I did debate in high school, but I'm too lazy and have class in thirty minutes.

post them later please, you have peaked my interest with this post.

[we are cured]

The Democratic Peace Theory is bunk though. I could pull cards from when I did debate in high school, but I'm too lazy and have class in thirty minutes.

There's a reason it's just a theory...obviously there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove it. It is still often used to substantiate democratization.

[cfear]

There's a reason it's just a theory...obviously there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove it. It is still often used to substantiate democratization.

Yeah, people use stupid things to back stupid things. I'll get on that other stuff later though, once I finish my paper on, you guessed it, democratization I'll try and just post that. Or, I'll post a link to somewhere I have it online.

[tambam]

Or the UN should actually serve a purpose.

Exactly. The UN is way too passive, especially with severe human rights issues.

[Love As Arson]

We are promoting democracy for our own self-purpose, though I wouldn't call it imperialism.
It seems to be quite apparent that this is what imperialism is: Exerting control over the politics of a nation in order to better serve your own country.

[Love As Arson]

Exactly. The UN is way too passive, especially with severe human rights issues.
It is made impotent by nations that simply shrug off their decisions or prevent the process of issuing sanctions by vetoing it, because the party that is to be sanctioned holds some economic significance to it.

[tambam]

It is made impotent by nations that simply shrug off their decisions or prevent the process of issuing sanctions by vetoing it, because the party that is to be sanctioned holds some economic significance to it.

I'm just saying that I think that's wrong and shouldn't be an option. The boarders of a country should not be where law ends.

[cfear]

It is made impotent by nations that simply shrug off their decisions or prevent the process of issuing sanctions by vetoing it, because the party that is to be sanctioned holds some economic significance to it.

The US does that a lot. Or votes against a SC Resolution b/c it goes against US interests, even though the rest of the SC votes for it.

[aminorthreat55]

post them later please, you have peaked my interest with this post.
*piqued

[we are cured]

It seems to be quite apparent that this is what imperialism is: Exerting control over the politics of a nation in order to better serve your own country.

Towards the betterment/development of an empire.

Since powerful nations now use economic policy for leverage over less powerful states, I'm not sure we can say that they are trying to build an empire.

But then again, this is all a matter of semantics.

[Fedaykin]

We are promoting democracy for our own self-purpose, though I wouldn't call it imperialism.

Democratic peace theory states that democracies aren't necessarily less warlike than non-democracies, but that democracies almost never fight democracies. So if you turn a country into a democracy, strategically speaking you have less to worry about - eventually.
yeah, i mean, we turned Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies: look how safe those countries are! It's not like they have to be patrolled 365 days a year by an occupation force or anything! BTW Who says we have a democracy in this country? 40% of the voting age public voted in the last elections, what kind of a turn out is that for setting an example of American exceptionalism?

[Justin_stacy]

Towards the betterment/development of an empire.

Since powerful nations now use economic policy for leverage over less powerful states, I'm not sure we can say that they are trying to build an empire.

But then again, this is all a matter of semantics.

Its not really semantics, because what you're saying isn't an empire by traditional terms. Economic pressure can create a sphere of influence, but it can not create an empire.

As for the original question about obligation to democratize the world, of course we don't, Washington’s obligations should be to do what’s in the best interest for its American citizens, and democratizing the world isn’t in the best interest of Americans. It leads to resentment, more militarial obligations and the truth is it’s not necessary we can work with a dictator just as easily, if not better, as an elected official.

For democracy to work it has to be home grown with localized support. Us coming in and creating a “democracy” from scratch does not create a lasting government, as that government will always be viewed as a foreign presence, which is exactly what we’re seeing in Iraq. Saddum brutalized his people, his power was created out of force, and only about 10% of the population benefited directly from his presidency. But yet we are seeing a resurgence in support for the Baathes party, and why is that? Wouldn’t one assume that democracy would be more favorable then past brutality? But yet the support in Iraq is turning agaisnt democracy, and that’s because the democracy America created isn’t home grown and isn’t viewed as “Iraqi” by the people, its viewed as a puppet regime. Iraq proved you can’t force democracy or freedom on others.

[Justin_stacy]

yeah, i mean, we turned Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies: look how safe those countries are! It's not like they have to be patrolled 365 days a year by an occupation force or anything! BTW Who says we have a democracy in this country? 40% of the voting age public voted in the last elections, what kind of a turn out is that for setting an example of American exceptionalism?

You think we should start forcing people to start voting? Would that show the world a clearer picture of democracy?

[Fedaykin]

You think we should start forcing people to start voting? Would that show the world a clearer picture of democracy?
No but turning them into democracies didn't make them participate in the political process. People have to care because it is important to them. Just because we are an indirect democracy doesn't mean people care enough to participate. In short, making a country a democracy will change the structure of government, not the citizens and their beliefs, actions etc.

[Justin_stacy]

Who says we have a democracy in this country?

Who are you refering too with that comment....The USA or Iraq?

[justinevans]

No but turning them into democracies didn't make them participate in the political process. People have to care because it is important to them. Just because we are an indirect democracy doesn't mean people care enough to participate. In short, making a country a democracy will change the structure of government, not the citizens and their beliefs, actions etc.

i said that before. you can change the institution, but you have the change the individual to have any success.

[we are cured]

yeah, i mean, we turned Iraq and Afghanistan into democracies: look how safe those countries are! It's not like they have to be patrolled 365 days a year by an occupation force or anything! BTW Who says we have a democracy in this country? 40% of the voting age public voted in the last elections, what kind of a turn out is that for setting an example of American exceptionalism?

Iraq and Afghanistan are in developmental stages, actually post destruction stages, and cannot be called democracies.

Kinda of like the Soviet Bloc nations after the the USSR fell, a large amount of time is needed for these countries to make the transition to democracies.

[selftitled85]

Active promotion by way of force or economic intimidation for one's own interest is imperialism.

you can easily promote democracy without using coercive measures which could be seen as imperialism.

[Love As Arson]

you can easily promote democracy without using coercive measures which could be seen as imperialism.
You can promote democracy, but when force or intimidation is used, then it is imperialism.

Towards the betterment/development of an empire.

Since powerful nations now use economic policy for leverage over less powerful states, I'm not sure we can say that they are trying to build an empire.
The face of empire has changed over the last century.

[we are cured]

The face of empire has changed over the last century.

You forgot to quote the part where I said it was a matter of semantics.

[selftitled85]

You can promote democracy, but when force or intimidation is used, then it is imperialism.


i agree. but i read what you said as the only way to promote democracy is through imperialistic measures...which i dont think is true.

[preppyak]

No, the US should not be an imperialist power.

Exactly...and the fact that we have molded our doctrine of pre-emption into a form of imperialsim is possibly going to be the downfall of our military, or the Middle East in general.

I just spent the last two weeks doing a RAND war game, where is simulates a second Iran-Iraq war in 1995, where Iran takes control of Iraq. They also develop nuclear capability within this time frame, and decide that for economic reasons, the price of oil needs to rise, so they threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to lower their oil output...and begin mobilizing forces on their borders (via Iraq).

What I found out is that their is no military scenario where ther is an acceptable risk...if they invade Kuwait, and we adopt the military scenario involved, it puts 6-7 divisions of our troops (80,000 soldiers or so, in a concentrated staging area) directly in a nuclear threat. And the way our theatre missile defense is, if Iran attacked us with their nuclear arsenal, it is almost a guarantee they would wipe out all of our ground forces (which is half of our current force total), essentially crippling us. I know it is only a scenario, but it isn't far from reality...which is why it is scary.

We needed that doctrine of prevention to guarantee Iran and surrounding nations don't get WMD, for our oil interest in the area (which we are far from being independent of) we cannot accept that kind of an action, but now if we were to pre-empt in Iran, it would seem like another imperial conquest.

[preppyak]

It is made impotent by nations that simply shrug off their decisions or prevent the process of issuing sanctions by vetoing it, because the party that is to be sanctioned holds some economic significance to it.

you can easily promote democracy without using coercive measures which could be seen as imperialism.
True...but what we are doing in Iraq is not that...it is imperialism in form.

And just because we are "better off" doesn't mean the Middle East is better off, or that the world in general is better off, so that kind of a justification (which i know is coming from someone) doesn't work for me

[cal1082]

who thinks the US has an obligation to actively promote the spread of democracy? who thinks the US has no obligation to actively promote democracy, but rather should passively endorse the spread of democracy? or, who thinks democracy sucks.

I say passively endorse and promote democratic governments. Almost don't want to use the word "passively" but I wouldnt want them forcing democracy with force because I'm not the least bit convienced that it would work for the exact reasons Justin pointed out.

You can't copy and paste the US Constitution into a country and expect good results. This kind of government requires an active civilian population.

[cal1082]

I don't think they have any business doing that. The US should worry about itself, and let other countries worry about themselves unless they personally invite the US to come in.

In todays global age, worrying about yourself includes worrying about other countries. You cant isolate yourself.

[Love As Arson]

i agree. but i read what you said as the only way to promote democracy is through imperialistic measures...which i dont think is true.
I agree. However, as it has been pointed out, democracy is a conclusion that the populace of the country must come to themselves.

[cfear]

We needed that doctrine of prevention to guarantee Iran and surrounding nations don't get WMD, for our oil interest in the area (which we are far from being independent of) we cannot accept that kind of an action, but now if we were to pre-empt in Iran, it would seem like another imperial conquest.

How can we justify pre-emption though? Pre-emptive war takes foreign policy to a whole new level: Anything that can in some way be construed as a threat could potentially be used as grounds for launching a pre-emptive war. If "State A" can convince the western democracies, who generally decided if a military move is just or not, that "State B" is a threat to them then pre-emptive war would technically be justified. BUT, that doesn't make it so. The leaders of "State A" could have fabricated the threat and played on a serious flaw present in the government of "State B" in order to gain support for pre-emption. And, of course, if this was the case it would be a very scary world. I mean, by the time people realized whatever claim was made was bogus it would be too late to do anything. To an extent this is the case in Iraq. The US exploit that fact that Saddam had invaded Quwait and was a dictator and played the world. Iraq never had WMDs, and Saddam didn't pose a real threat to the US, but this didn't stop the Bush Administration from pushing for, and ultimately going through with, a pre-emptive war.

James Bond is out today everybody. My paper is reaching 9 pages so far, on a five page assignment, and I still have more. I will put it up though; even though I will probably cut half of it in the end.

[youcomebeforeyo]

But yet we are seeing a resurgence in support for the Baathes party, and why is that? Wouldn’t one assume that democracy would be more favorable then past brutality? But yet the support in Iraq is turning agaisnt democracy, and that’s because the democracy America created isn’t home grown and isn’t viewed as “Iraqi” by the people, its viewed as a puppet regime. Iraq proved you can’t force democracy or freedom on others.

I always find this an interesting thing. I think it comes down to an ideological battle, would you prefer to have running services (electricity, water etc) and a stable country with absolutely no political freedom or politcal freedom in an unsafe country?

I think I would find myself leaning to the first option if I had a family, after all at the end of the day people generally want what's best for the ones they love.

[preppyak]

How can we justify pre-emption though? Pre-emptive war takes foreign policy to a whole new level: Anything that can in some way be construed as a threat could potentially be used as grounds for launching a pre-emptive war. If "State A" can convince the western democracies, who generally decided if a military move is just or not, that "State B" is a threat to them then pre-emptive war would technically be justified. BUT, that doesn't make it so. The leaders of "State A" could have fabricated the threat and played on a serious flaw present in the government of "State B" in order to gain support for pre-emption. And, of course, if this was the case it would be a very scary world. I mean, by the time people realized whatever claim was made was bogus it would be too late to do anything. To an extent this is the case in Iraq. The US exploit that fact that Saddam had invaded Quwait and was a dictator and played the world. Iraq never had WMDs, and Saddam didn't pose a real threat to the US, but this didn't stop the Bush Administration from pushing for, and ultimately going through with, a pre-emptive war.

To your first part, we can justify pre-emption in the name of global safety and world oil supplies, things that are larger than just US interest...which a nuclear armed Iran is a major threat to. Viable proof that they are acquiring the materials for a weapon is what we need...we didn't have that in Iraq.

For your second part, that is why I am saying it's possible that we have elimated our best option for preventing nuclear proliferation, because we decided it was more important to "democratize". We ignored the fact we knew they didn't have WMD, that our intelligence was incomplete at best and proceeded anyway. That is not intelligent pre-emption, it is imperialism, and there is a huge difference between the two, both in action and in how the international community will recieve it. In finding out Iraq had no WMD, we should have removed ourselves from their nation and paid reparations for our actions...fuck how weak it makes us look initially, it makes us look far worse when we promote imperialist looking actions instead.

Furthermore, democracy is still young as a form of government, it hasn't had the stay of things like monarchy have in their forms, and who is to say it is the best form of government for every nation...especially when it has taken many years for a majority of nations to adopt it, and even then their forms are weak in many cases.

[preppyak]

I always find this an interesting thing. I think it comes down to an ideological battle, would you prefer to have running services (electricity, water etc) and a stable country with absolutely no political freedom or politcal freedom in an unsafe country?

I think I would find myself leaning to the first option if I had a family, after all at the end of the day people generally want what's best for the ones they love.

When you are born without political freedom, freedom comes in far simpler ways, things that we in the US don't see as "freedom", but rather tyranny. I don't think the freedom of speech we enjoy here in the US would fly in the Arab world...it is far too incendiary for that conservative mindset. I mean, just think of how more abstract forms of speech (flag burning, etc) piss off the heavily conservative in our nation, and transfer that freedom to a religion that is far more indoctrinated...it's a mess. I mean, a movie like "The Last Temptation of Christ" would never work with a depiction of Muhammad as such...and look to the danish cartoons as proof of that.

Plus, in a nation like Iraq that has so consistently been torn between competing religious views, I don't see how democracy can work, because like the Republican/Democrat ideal split has caused US policy to be largely ineffective, the laws enacted by a Sunni or Shi'ite government would be deliberately aimed at harming the other group, not neccesarily helping the nation.

[cfear]

To your first part, we can justify pre-emption in the name of global safety and world oil supplies, things that are larger than just US interest...which a nuclear armed Iran is a major threat to. Viable proof that they are acquiring the materials for a weapon is what we need...we didn't have that in Iraq.

Is a nuclear Iran a threat to the welfare of the world? I fail to see how it is. A nuclear United States is just as dangerous. Also, how can the United States justify pre-emption by claiming the oil supplies in the region are at risk? The oil industry is lavish in the United States, and it is no secret that the oil companies, in all liklihood, love the idea of further crisis in the Middle East. They can up the price of oil if so much as a gunshot is fired in the region. People don't realize much of the oil we consume in the US comes from outside of the Middle East (if you don't believe me, look it up: it shocked me too), so realistically this shouldnt happen, but it does. The Worlds oil supplies are limited, and the oil companies need profit. They can only make profit while the oil supplies available last. In the good old capitalist market system every little factor has the potential to sink a ship and devaste the economy of the world; or, of course, it can go the other way. With limited resources oil companies need to do two things to continue to make profits: (a) make as much as possible off of the remaining supply and (b) invest in nuclear energy. There are many ways to attain option a: be prepared for major natural disasters in nations with large economies, limit the supply, and war are just a few options. Much like option a, in option b there are many ways to sustain wealth by investing in nuclear power. Nuclear power, as we all know, can always exist. the oil industry will eventually be out of its product, but they will have a new one very quickly. as george hw bush always reminds us, nuclear energy is the future. we need more nuclear plants and more nuclear power. it is environmentally friendly and efficent, blah blah blah. the oil companies can make the jump to nuclear investments over time, and continue to make billions by buying out the existing industry with the billions of dollars they reap annually.

i'm not an economics or business major, so these are just my thoughts. im just an intl studies kid, we focus more on policy and philosophy of governments, though knowing and understanding markets is a part of that.

and also, you mentioned the danish cartoons in one response: haha. i wrote like a twenty something page essay on that last february. i focused mainly on huntingtons clash of civilizations, which was a more conservative approach than i usually take, but it got an a.

[cal1082]

Is a nuclear Iran a threat to the welfare of the world? I fail to see how it is. A nuclear United States is just as dangerous. Also, how can the United States justify pre-emption by claiming the oil supplies in the region are at risk? The oil industry is lavish in the United States, and it is no secret that the oil companies, in all liklihood, love the idea of further crisis in the Middle East. They can up the price of oil if so much as a gunshot is fired in the region. People don't realize much of the oil we consume in the US comes from outside of the Middle East (if you don't believe me, look it up: it shocked me too), so realistically this shouldnt happen, but it does. The Worlds oil supplies are limited, and the oil companies need profit. They can only make profit while the oil supplies available last. In the good old capitalist market system every little factor has the potential to sink a ship and devaste the economy of the world; or, of course, it can go the other way. With limited resources oil companies need to do two things to continue to make profits: (a) make as much as possible off of the remaining supply and (b) invest in nuclear energy. There are many ways to attain option a: be prepared for major natural disasters in nations with large economies, limit the supply, and war are just a few options. Much like option a, in option b there are many ways to sustain wealth by investing in nuclear power. Nuclear power, as we all know, can always exist. the oil industry will eventually be out of its product, but they will have a new one very quickly. as george hw bush always reminds us, nuclear energy is the future. we need more nuclear plants and more nuclear power. it is environmentally friendly and efficent, blah blah blah. the oil companies can make the jump to nuclear investments over time, and continue to make billions by buying out the existing industry with the billions of dollars they reap annually.

i'm not an economics or business major, so these are just my thoughts. im just an intl studies kid, we focus more on policy and philosophy of governments, though knowing and understanding markets is a part of that.

and also, you mentioned the danish cartoons in one response: haha. i wrote like a twenty something page essay on that last february. i focused mainly on huntingtons clash of civilizations, which was a more conservative approach than i usually take, but it got an a.

You're kidding me right.........? You really don't see Iran, whose openly called for the destruction of the state of Israel, who funds terrorists already for their destruction, as a threat to the world?

You are foolish to not see this.

[cfear]

No, I am not kidding. Every Arab state has called for the destruction of Israel. Every Arab state supports terrorism to an extent. BUT, that doesn't mean that just because that an Arab state gains nuclear capability it is going to automatically use that to threaten the world. Just because Iran isn't a Western Democracy doesn't mean that the leaders are stupid. They know that Israel also has nuclear potential, and that its major allies have far more nuclear weapons than anyone else. They know a nuclear strike against Israel or other western states will cause retalitory nuclear strikes in which the world will suffer. When you bring nuclear capablitity into the equation things become a little easier to work. The only state whose nuclear program has the potential to jepordize the world is North Korea, because Kim Jong Il is literally a nutcase. Ahmadenijad isn't dumb.

[cal1082]

No, I am not kidding. Every Arab state has called for the destruction of Israel. Every Arab state supports terrorism to an extent. BUT, that doesn't mean that just because that an Arab state gains nuclear capability it is going to automatically use that to threaten the world. Just because Iran isn't a Western Democracy doesn't mean that the leaders are stupid. They know that Israel also has nuclear potential, and that its major allies have far more nuclear weapons than anyone else. They know a nuclear strike against Israel or other western states will cause retalitory nuclear strikes in which the world will suffer. When you bring nuclear capablitity into the equation things become a little easier to work. The only state whose nuclear program has the potential to jepordize the world is North Korea, because Kim Jong Il is literally a nutcase. Ahmadenijad isn't dumb.

Ahmadenijad is not the central authority in Iran. That's the first thing you should realize. Power is coming from the mullahs.

Secondly, they dont even have to actually "use" it. The simple fact that they have it, want the destruction of Israel and have already shown they are willing to fund terorrists groups is the threat. It's a huge bargaining chip and destabalizes world power into the hands of a country who has underminded the world with every move it has made.

Think about what you are saying. Nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous regimes that have been shown to support terrorism and ignore international laws are what makes it a threat.

Because they have been shown to not care what international law says, or their consequences will be.

Also what exactly makes you classify the North Korean leadership as being a nutcase and the Iran leadership not?

[cfear]

Think about what you are saying. Nuclear weapons in the hands of dangerous regimes that have been shown to support terrorism and ignore international laws are what makes it a threat.

Also what exactly makes you classify the North Korean leadership as being a nutcase and the Iran leadership not?

The United States sponsored terrorism in Afhganistan and Latin America in the 1980s, and the government also backed the Kurdish freedom fighters in Iraq who used to terrorist methods to overthrow Saddams secular dictatorship. Also, the United States has show a blatant disregard for international law under the Bush Administration. We, by that logic, destabilize world politcs with out possession of the largest nuclear arsenal.

Ok, the North Korean leadership is wacko. The president is dead. Kim Jong Il is technically second in command. The leader was appointed by God and blah blah blah; we all know the story on how the North Korean government came to be. It's literally crazy. the Iranian leadership is pretty much a typical theocracy. They aren't any more theocratic than the ledership in Saudi Arabia, if anything they are less theocratic. The Iranian government, while wildy conservative, is more liberal in many aspects than other Islamic regimes (though, it is probably only by .00000001%). Though the mullahs run the government, Iran is westernizing in many aspects. 90% of the reason the US is playing the Iranians as crazy is because we don't like the fact that a non-Western Democracy is becoming a power in the world and is doing very little in the way of advancing the free-market. B/c we all know all our government cares about is free-trade agreements and profit. It's sad, but true.

[youcomebeforeyo]

I fail to see the distinction between Iran supporting Hezbollah to fire rockets into Israel and Israel using cluster bombs in civilian areas (which is against the world arms code)?

Israel doesn't exactly help itself out in middle eastern politics. I seriously doubt we will ever see a Palestinian state, there's a lot tied up in terms of resources to Israel that they couldn't let go of. Israel's largest water supply for example is in the southern end of the West Bank. Also Palestinians provide cheap labour for Israeli industries. A Palestinian state jeporidizes Israel's economy.

It seems to me Israel is just as low as its own neighbours.

[asthesoulman]

it's ironic how the same people who complain about the democratization of iraq are the same ones who would be on his ass to do something if he were being completely passive.
all i have to say is saddam hussein was a walking piece of shit. and he needed to be removed somehow.

[preppyak]

it's ironic how the same people who complain about the democratization of iraq are the same ones who would be on his ass to do something if he were being completely passive.
all i have to say is saddam hussein was a walking piece of shit. and he needed to be removed somehow.
By your theory it is our job to remove all leaders who we deem "evil", regardless of their most recent actions.

We can't have a perfect world, and we have to accept a certain number of leaders who are totalitarian within that context. What we can (or at least could have) done is keep those leaders from aquiring effective nuclear arsenals, to minimize their ability to cause harm. For example, nations like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc, we retain an absurd conventional weapons advantage over, and if we keep them from acquiring nuclear arms, we possess that vast superiority still.

We CANNOT accept nuclear arms in those nations though

[captainhampton]

Is a nuclear Iran a threat to the welfare of the world? I fail to see how it is. A nuclear United States is just as dangerous.

say what? 100 percent wrong.

[cfear]

say what? 100 percent wrong.

Actually, it is a valid statement. The United States kept the world in a state of fear for forty years or so because we didn't like a political philosophy different than ours. Russia is to blame as well, but the United States is 50% of that equation. Think about it. The United States is just as likely to use nuclear weapons on other nations as Iran is. Not to mention, much of the US population wouldn't mind using nuclear weapons on Iran and wouldn't try to stop it from happening. I'm going to go back to the Democratic Peace Theory: One of the many things advocates of this theory say is that within democratic states the population are less likely to see people in other countries hurt, especially if these people are also from a democratic state. So, if that is the case, the world will be much more peaceful. BUT, one of the many reasons the Democratic Peace Theory fails to work is because it doesn't take into account ignorance. It assumes that all peoples of democratic state are intelligent. That isn't the case, especially in the United States. People in the US are ignorant motherfuckers. We seem to be the only people who have the potential to be the smartest in the world, but for some reason we don't. If you walk down the streets of Anytown, USA and ask random people what they think about nuclear weapons they, for the most part, tell you they are necessary for our defense. I have talked to so many people in my life who think "nuking 'em" is the solution to every problem. Nuke Russia. Nuke China. Nuke North Korea. Nuke Vietnam. Nuke Iran. Nuke Iraq. Nuke Nuke Nuke! Of course, these are the same people who make up our electorate. The people that choose our leaders are idiots (read: many of...). Our leaders, literally, don't have to worry about using nuclear weapons. The accountability factor in the US is low. In other western states it is higher, but in the US politicians can get away with just about anything. Not everything, of course, but a lot. It's scary. If the current administration, or any administration, used nuclear weapons they would only have to explain themselves to the world community. Of course, this would be easy. The administration could paint the international community as corrupt, and focus its effort on explaning why they were justified in their actions to the public (while labeling dissenters as enemies to America). It's easy enough to see how American possession of nuclear weapons is bad. Possession of nuclear weapons in general is bad. It doesn't matter who has them. It's always a bad thing, but since they do exist we can't act like hypocrites and assume that a regime we deem "evil" is going to use them against us. That is retarded. Just because Iran dislikes the United States and Israel we have no reason to think they will use them. If you use that logic then look out world, the US is going to bomb YOU.

[preppyak]

Think about it. The United States is just as likely to use nuclear weapons on other nations as Iran is. Not to mention, much of the US population wouldn't mind using nuclear weapons on Iran and wouldn't try to stop it from happening.
Trust me, you are incredibly wrong with this...

Going back to that RAND stuff, 80% of our military personnel would not use nuclear weapons for a retaliatory strike on Iran, even if they had destroyed our entire ground military force. An ever larger percent wouldn't even introduce tactical nuclear arms into our forces on the ground and in the ships just off the coast. There will never be a time where a majority of the nation wants to use nuclear weapons....they may half-heartedly say "Nuke em" as a joke, but when asked to seriously consider us using nuclear weapons, less than 10% of people say it is a good idea.

Essentially what I am saying is that I do not believe we will ever use Nuclear Weapons again....ever.

Not that Iran is more likely though, but in a region where they can dominate the world economy by threatening their use and taking over nations...it is an unacceptable threat.

I'm in favor of nuclear abolition, but at this point it is incredibly unrealistic (and I think the only way people would adopt it is after a nuclear war, which is already too late), so the reality is that we have to work on a non-proliferation basis, not letting new countries gather technology, and already nuclear nations stockpile.

Under the premise of nuclear weapons, we could essentially justify (this assumes we didn't fuck up Iraq) pre-emption as an off-shoot of our nuclear policy, both with the Non-Proliferation Treaties, and others (though, with Iraq and us selling technology to India, it is probably impossible for us to justify it).
Our leaders, literally, don't have to worry about using nuclear weapons. The accountability factor in the US is low. In other western states it is higher, but in the US politicians can get away with just about anything.
I understand your point here...and I agree that is sucks that our politicians have been able to get away with a lot, but it's not a complete non-accountability taht they have.

If we were to make a nuclear attack on any nation like Iran, regardless of what they had done to us, we would be seen by the international community as a kind of WWII Germany or Japan. The history books will talk about the nuclear attack and not the reason for it...and it will take many generations for us to get out of the stigma of such an event. Because a nuclear attack would devestate the area, and not just the country we attack, it's also possible that if we use enough nuclear force, that we end up harming the entire world, ourselves included, with the nuclear fall out.

To place that into context, we were attacked on our soil and 3,000+ of our people were killed, but fewer than 6 years later, the international community doesn't have sympathy for us anymore...instead they see us as an imperial force of sorts and in general, we aren;t looked upon favorably, only 6 years after a devestating attack. Imagine 60 years down the road...who will feel sympathy then?

[Judge'sDaughter]

the US is a world power, so no matter what the fuck other countries want, the US will do what the US wants to do. <p>
personally, though, I think that we should stick to our own screwed up country instead of "helping" everybody else.