U.S. Foreign Policy?

POLITICAL JEDI · 09-21-07, 10:37 PM

Below is an interesting article that examines the 4 schools that have guided American foreign policy. Those schools respectively are: Isolationism, Liberal Internationalism, Realism, and Neoconservatism. After reading the piece, and if you can, make a compelling argument as to where the author has gone wrong. I would like to engage in a civil debate with the opposition on the merits of said piece.

AEI - Short Publications

Kandahar · 09-21-07, 11:57 PM

Interesting piece. While obviously biased, it does present some accurate facts about these four schools of thought.

I would say I'm a mixture of liberal interventionism and realism. Call it "capitalist globalism," rather than democratic globalism. I'm 100% in favor of creating an international community to advance free trade and resolve economic disputes between nations, but I'm a realist in that I don't generally believe we need to ask anyone else's permission before we take action abroad.

Democratic globalism (neoconservatism) is hopelessly naive. It assumes that all cultures inherently want democracy, and even if they don't, democracy can be imposed on them if necessary. I see absolutely no evidence for either of those ideas.

POLITICAL JEDI · 09-22-07, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Democratic globalism (neoconservatism) is hopelessly naive. It assumes that all cultures inherently want democracy, and even if they don't, democracy can be imposed on them if necessary. I see absolutely no evidence for either of those ideas.

First, 10 million Iraqis ( in a country that has a little over 25 million people ) risked death to go to the polls, vote, and get purple fingertips. We don't even enjoy that kind of voter turn out. So with that said, it is clear, under the 30 years of Saddams regime, the majority of the Iraqi people wanted democracy.

Secondly, who imposed it on them? Americans didn't force them to hold elections, we merely provided the security at the polling stations. Americans didn't decide whose names would be on the ballots, Iraqi's decided. Americans didn't write Iraq's constitution, Iraqi's wrote it.

Now I will concede that what they voted for turned out to be totally inept. With a loyalty to clan or religious sect rather then country, it's hard to see progress. But the important factor is that it's a start of something new. Should they preserve their right to free speech and read newspapers of every opinion. Should they continue to have free elections, they will undoubtedly have their Washingtons, Lincolns and Kennedys. . .It's just going to take some time is all. As the saying goes: "Rome wasn't built in a day."

Billo_Really · 09-22-07, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by POLITICAL JEDI
First, 10 million Iraqis ( in a country that has a little over 25 million people ) risked death to go to the polls, vote, and get purple fingertips. We don't even enjoy that kind of voter turn out. So with that said, it is clear, under the 30 years of Saddams regime, the majority of the Iraqi people wanted democracy.

What the Iraqis want (87% according to one poll), is us out of their country.

Quote:

Originally posted by POLITICAL JEDI
Secondly, who imposed it on them? Americans didn't force them to hold elections, we merely provided the security at the polling stations. Americans didn't decide whose names would be on the ballots, Iraqi's decided. Americans didn't write Iraq's constitution, Iraqi's wrote it.

We had authority over approving who would be eligible to run and the specific format of the elections. As for the constitution, we forced them to right one in violation of international law.

Quote:

Originally posted by POLITICAL JEDI
Now I will concede that what they voted for turned out to be totally inept. With a loyalty to clan or religious sect rather then country, it's hard to see progress. But the important factor is that it's a start of something new. Should they preserve their right to free speech and read newspapers of every opinion. Should they continue to have free elections, they will undoubtedly have their Washingtons, Lincolns and Kennedys. . .It's just going to take some time is all. As the saying goes: "Rome wasn't built in a day."

This is known as the Law of Republican Special Relativity

Quote:

The Right's Garden of False Narratives
By Phil Rockstroh September 20, 2007

As a result, a generation has inherited power who are devoid of the concept of causation and consequence. Ergo, we have developed a political class who rule by narratives of denial and shallow self-justification.

An example of this is the blaming of the people of Iraq for the blood-drenched debacle that has resulted from the illegal and immoral invasion of their nation. As well as, an enabling cadre of media elitists who served as cheerleaders for the invasion, because they deemed it to be good for business, and, to this day, are unwilling to admit their complicity.

Oh, yeah, it's all their fault! It's all on the Iraqis, we haven't done anything but bring them freedom such as this...

Quote:

George W. Bush's Thug Nation
By Robert Parry September 21, 2007

...it now appears that Bush has authorized “rules of engagement” that have transformed U.S. Special Forces into “death squads,” much like those that roamed Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s identifying “subversives” and murdering them.

According to evidence emerging from a military court hearing at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, U.S. Special Forces are empowered to kill individuals who have been designated “enemy combatants,” even if they are unarmed and present no visible threat.

No matter how much you want too, you can't re-write history.

Kandahar · 09-22-07, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by POLITICAL JEDI

First, 10 million Iraqis ( in a country that has a little over 25 million people ) risked death to go to the polls, vote, and get purple fingertips. We don't even enjoy that kind of voter turn out. So with that said, it is clear, under the 30 years of Saddams regime, the majority of the Iraqi people wanted democracy.

Secondly, who imposed it on them? Americans didn't force them to hold elections, we merely provided the security at the polling stations. Americans didn't decide whose names would be on the ballots, Iraqi's decided. Americans didn't write Iraq's constitution, Iraqi's wrote it.

Now I will concede that what they voted for turned out to be totally inept. With a loyalty to clan or religious sect rather then country, it's hard to see progress. But the important factor is that it's a start of something new. Should they preserve their right to free speech and read newspapers of every opinion. Should they continue to have free elections, they will undoubtedly have their Washingtons, Lincolns and Kennedys. . .It's just going to take some time is all. As the saying goes: "Rome wasn't built in a day."

Well obviously the Iraqis wanted to vote. But that isn't the same thing as wanting democracy. Like you said, they voted for candidates based on clan rather than on issues. That isn't democracy, that's mob rule.

The idea that all/most people of the world (especially in Arab nations) are inherent democrats just waiting to be free, has very little evidence to support it. Even in the countries where they dislike their government, they mostly view democracy only as a means to get rid of that government...and after that happens, it ceases to be important.

We most certainly imposed democracy on Iraq, by the simple act of invasion, on the premise that a more American style of government is what everyone wants. This is the same arrogance displayed during the haydays of the Roman and British Empires. But if a group of people don't want, don't care about, or don't understand democracy, it may not the best form of government for them. This is one of the biggest problems with Democratic Peace Theory, now accepted as gospel by neoconservatives. While it's true that democracies don't go to war with each other, it's foolish to assume that forcibly turning a country into a democracy will automatically make it more peaceful. Democracy and peace...which is the cause and which is the effect? Or are they both caused by similar societal factors without being directly related to each other at all?

POLITICAL JEDI · 09-23-07, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

What the Iraqis want (87% according to one poll), is us out of their country.We had authority over approving who would be eligible to run and the specific format of the elections. As for the constitution, we forced them to right one in violation of international law. This is known as the Law of Republican Special Relativity

Oh, yeah, it's all their fault! It's all on the Iraqis, we haven't done anything but bring them freedom such as this...No matter how much you want too, you can't re-write history.

Hey Billo, can you offer anything else besides polls, fantasy, and op-eds from far left Cindy Sheahan/Michael Moore websites???

bhkad · 09-23-07, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Well obviously the Iraqis wanted to vote. But that isn't the same thing as wanting democracy. Like you said, they voted for candidates based on clan rather than on issues. That isn't democracy, that's mob rule.

The idea that all/most people of the world (especially in Arab nations) are inherent democrats just waiting to be free, has very little evidence to support it. Even in the countries where they dislike their government, they mostly view democracy only as a means to get rid of that government...and after that happens, it ceases to be important.

We most certainly imposed democracy on Iraq, by the simple act of invasion, on the premise that a more American style of government is what everyone wants. This is the same arrogance displayed during the haydays of the Roman and British Empires. But if a group of people don't want, don't care about, or don't understand democracy, it may not the best form of government for them. This is one of the biggest problems with Democratic Peace Theory, now accepted as gospel by neoconservatives. While it's true that democracies don't go to war with each other, it's foolish to assume that forcibly turning a country into a democracy will automatically make it more peaceful. Democracy and peace...which is the cause and which is the effect? Or are they both caused by similar societal factors without being directly related to each other at all?

Consider this interview very, very carefully.

Quote:

January 12, 2007 No.1422

Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din: Democracy in the Middle East Can Only Be Established by Force

The following are excerpts from an interview with Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal Al-Din, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on December 28, 2006.

TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1351

Interviewer: "How can the Iraqi public, which is anti-American, and which believes the U.S. is the Great Satan, support people who talk the way you do?"

Iyad Jamal Al-Din: "Whoever believes America is the Great Satan should not shake its hand. I do not consider the U.S. to be the Great Satan. I view it as the sponsor and founder of the project of democracy, and the defender of democracy in Iraq. You can be sure that if America were to withdraw today, there would be Shiite massacres of Shiites, Sunni massacres of Sunnis, and Kurdish massacres of Kurds. The strong would again devour the weak, until somebody would be back the next day - there's no doubt about it. We are still far from democracy."

Interviewer: "On what do you base your trust of the U.S. and its plans for the region?"

Iyad Jamal Al-Din: "Democracy is the religion of the dollar and serves its global interests. This dollar has a spirited life - it is dear, honorable, and loveable. It gets vexed real quickly, get it? Dollar has a religion. The religion of the dollar is democracy. This applies to the entire world, because the dollar cannot thrive in dictatorial countries, but only in democracies. For the sake of their global economy, [the Americans] establish democracy.

"We, the oppressed and slaughtered peoples, have seen nothing but stupid dictators or wise dictators. It's one of the two. Wise dictators pave roads and build houses, but they are still dictators. On the other hand, there are stupid dictators, like our friend who has gone. We are very far from democracy. It is inconceivable that we endured this humiliation and tyranny for 1,400 years, yet we are unable to create a democracy. Even after 1,400 years, our culture is still..."

Interviewer: "Democracy has resulted in what is now happening in Iraq."

Iyad Jamal Al-Din: "The result of democracy... We don't know... We are very far from liberty. Do we even know what to do with the values of liberty? The moment Saddam's club was lifted from over our heads, each and every one of us wanted to assume Saddam's personality. We had one Saddam, and now we have six, seven, 10, or 15 Saddams. We now have local mini-Saddams. I said this before the war. I said that America would do us a favor by ridding us of Saddam the dictator, but that this favor would be incomplete unless it rids us of the opposition parties. But this did not happen during the war. These people are photocopies of Saddam. Saddam was in power for 35 years, and so was the leader of this or that opposition party - not only in Iraq, but in all Arab and Islamic countries.

"The opposition is the mirror image of the regime. If we want to simplify matters, how come Hosni Mubarak has ruled for 23 years? I want to rule in his place, not because I want to change the nature of the regime, to make it a democracy, which respects human beings and private property... We are still far from all this. Therefore, in my opinion, democracy can be established in our region only through force. Democracy must be established by force, and only America can do it."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...aq&ID=SP142207

Quote:

Editor of the Kuwaiti Daily Al-Siyassa: The New Iraq Will Be 'the Beacon of Freedom, Democracy, and Respect to Human Rights in the Middle East'

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...raq&ID=SP60603

Quote:

November 19, 2002 No.440

Head of Iraqi Free Officers Movement: 'The Iraq of Tomorrow- Democracy is the Solution'

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...raq&ID=SP44002

POLITICAL JEDI · 09-23-07, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Well obviously the Iraqis wanted to vote. But that isn't the same thing as wanting democracy. Like you said, they voted for candidates based on clan rather than on issues. That isn't democracy, that's mob rule.

So by your logic, I am a republican, Billo is a democrat, I am going to vote for my clan and Billo is going to vote for his. . .And that is exactly what happened in Iraq, only their voting practice equals "mod rule" Why?

The idea that all/most people of the world (especially in Arab nations) are inherent democrats just waiting to be free, has very little evidence to support it. Even in the countries where they dislike their government, they mostly view democracy only as a means to get rid of that government...and after that happens, it ceases to be important.

Can you site an example? Cause as far as I know, the entire Middle East (with the exception of Israel) is run by autocracy and despots

We most certainly imposed democracy on Iraq, by the simple act of invasion, on the premise that a more American style of government is what everyone wants. This is the same arrogance displayed during the haydays of the Roman and British Empires. But if a group of people don't want, don't care about, or don't understand democracy, it may not the best form of government for them. This is one of the biggest problems with Democratic Peace Theory, now accepted as gospel by neoconservatives. While it's true that democracies don't go to war with each other, it's foolish to assume that forcibly turning a country into a democracy will automatically make it more peaceful. Democracy and peace...which is the cause and which is the effect? Or are they both caused by similar societal factors without being directly related to each other at all?

First, we did not "impose" democracy by the act of invasion. We could have installed a "U.S. puppet" to see to it that things go as we want them to go. We could have installed another despot, but we didn't. We gave Iraqi's the power to take control of their own country and destiny by removing Saddams regime.

Secondly, When did the Romans or British upon arriving on anyones soil promote democracy???

Thirdly, if democracies don't war with one another and look to settle their differences through compromise and debate, why is it "foolish" to think that by removing the autocrats and despots and fostering a legitimate democracy in their place, the newly elected government will be the exception to the rule when history ( Germany, Italy, Japan, Argentina, ect, ect ) say otherwise.

And finally, time and time again, history strongly suggest that freedom/democracy is a proven, successful and prosperous governing ideology:

Krauthammer

Quote:

"Consider one of history's rare controlled experiments. In the 1940s, lines were drawn through three peoples--Germans, Koreans and Chinese--one side closely bound to the United States, the other to our adversary Soviet Russia. It turned into a controlled experiment because both states in the divided lands shared a common culture. Fifty years later the results are in. Does anyone doubt the superiority, both moral and material, of West Germany vs. East Germany, South Korea vs. North Korea and Taiwan vs. China.

This is no accident. If people are free to build businesses, buy deeded land and homes, pursue upward mobility, live their lives without fear, read newspapers of every opinion, and vote for their leaders, they will simply have no reason to go to war with anyone. . .Unless of course there is evidence that suggest their nation and their way of life are threatened by others in the "international community"

Trajan Octavian Titus · 09-23-07, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

What the Iraqis want (87% according to one poll), is us out of their country.

The only polls that matter are the ones that occur on election day, and the Iraqi government has not requested for us to leave.

Quote:

We had authority over approving who would be eligible to run and the specific format of the elections.

You are a liar we did not select the candidates and it was the Iraqi interim government which chose the format of the elections along with the UN; furthermore, the elecions were certified as free and fair by the UN, the IECI, and the IMIE.

Quote:

As for the constitution, we forced them to right one in violation of international law. This is known as the Law of Republican Special Relativity

lol, the dually elected government of Iraq wrote the Constitution and the Iraqi people ratified it, tell me did we put guns to the Iraqi peoples heads to make them come out and vote too?

Quote:

Oh, yeah, it's all their fault! It's all on the Iraqis, we haven't done anything but bring them freedom such as this...No matter how much you want too, you can't re-write history.

First you article is a complete joke Meyer's stormed the stage and began to rant, he could have had a gun, a knife, anything, he's lucky he wasn't shot. Second of all Nawab Buntangyar who your article is defending was a murdering thug and the Green Beret's acted accordingly, apparently your article believes that snipers should be an outlawed form of warfare, completely ****ing ridiculous.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 09-23-07, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Well obviously the Iraqis wanted to vote. But that isn't the same thing as wanting democracy. Like you said, they voted for candidates based on clan rather than on issues. That isn't democracy, that's mob rule.

Umm they ratified their Constitution guaranteeing a power sharing agreement, that's not mob rule.

09-21-07, 10:37 PM	#1
POLITICAL JEDI User Join Date: Jul 2006 Last Seen: 10-23-07 09:01 PM Location: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave! Posts: 38 Thanks: 2 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts	U.S. Foreign Policy? Below is an interesting article that examines the 4 schools that have guided American foreign policy. Those schools respectively are: Isolationism, Liberal Internationalism, Realism, and Neoconservatism. After reading the piece, and if you can, make a compelling argument as to where the author has gone wrong. I would like to engage in a civil debate with the opposition on the merits of said piece. AEI - Short Publications
	__________________ The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country ~ Abraham Lincoln

09-21-07, 11:57 PM	#2
Kandahar Enemy Combatant Join Date: Jul 2005 Last Seen: 03-11-10 12:13 AM Location: Washington, DC Posts: 14,762 Thanks: 1,384 Thanked 3,874 Times in 2,212 Posts Lean: Liberal Gender:	Re: U.S. Foreign Policy? Interesting piece. While obviously biased, it does present some accurate facts about these four schools of thought. I would say I'm a mixture of liberal interventionism and realism. Call it "capitalist globalism," rather than democratic globalism. I'm 100% in favor of creating an international community to advance free trade and resolve economic disputes between nations, but I'm a realist in that I don't generally believe we need to ask anyone else's permission before we take action abroad. Democratic globalism (neoconservatism) is hopelessly naive. It assumes that all cultures inherently want democracy, and even if they don't, democracy can be imposed on them if necessary. I see absolutely no evidence for either of those ideas.
	__________________ Are you coming to bed? I can't. This is important. What? Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode