• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime

Originally Posted by kaya'08 I do think Afghanistan is a victim of invasive meddling by many nations, not just the US.

Please explain how responding to the worst attack on American soil in the history of the country, killing thousands, equates to invasive meddling and making Afghanistan a victim?
 
Please explain how responding to the worst attack on American soil in the history of the country, killing thousands, equates to invasive meddling and making Afghanistan a victim?

Were the Afghan People directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

The meddling of the British Empire, and the Soviets have nothing to do with the condition of Afghanistan today?
 
Well "Afghanistan" and the Russians had a very long history and the tribes within were split up to be a part of every single bordering nation. Half of these were under Soviet control. It was very much about distinctly dealing with Afghanistan. This "buffer" nation had been used between the colonial powers for a couple hundred years prior to the 1970s. Besides, the Soviet Union couldn't expand without entering into Pakistan, China, Iran, etc., which would have drew in former colonial powers (and current powers) that had claim and ties. Without looking to jump start World War III (remember how the last two started), Afghanistan was the end.
Thats hardly consistent with their actions or stated intent. And I think Korea and VietNam were pretty good testing grounds for the Communists...they saw that we would be willing to avoind a direct confrontation at all costs...because while they werent afraid of WWIII, they also knew not many others had the stomach for it. I think it far more likely that Afghanistan was just another piece of the south and westward expansion. Me...I dont like to think of what the world would have looked like had the USSR been successful.
 
Were the Afghan People directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

The meddling of the British Empire, and the Soviets have nothing to do with the condition of Afghanistan today?

I think the meddling of the Pakistanis and Saudis had something to do with the Afghan debacle as well.
 
Were the Afghan People directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

The meddling of the British Empire, and the Soviets have nothing to do with the condition of Afghanistan today?

"The People" seldom play an instigating role in any war. It is as always, the government. The people pay the price for the government actions.
 
Nothing moderate about the MB. They want Islamic Democracy which is exactly what you will find in Iran.

LOL!

Islamic democracy like Iran?

Where they hang Gays from lampposts and treat women like dogs?
 
Were the Afghan People directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

Were the Afghan people going to stop the Taliban & eject the terrorist Army that was training there without our help? Are they going to keep the terrorist army from coming back if we leave before there military is ready?

If this is meddling than I'm for more of it, but I think a better description would be defending the American people from further attack.

Anyway... lets not change the topic of this thread..
 
Anybody notice how Clinton has begun to take a more hardline approach toward Mubarak at a time when Obama is being meak in the public's eye or playing golf (literally I just that on FOX)? I'm really reserving my criticism towards my Commander in Chief, but he's starting to make it hard.
 
Thats hardly consistent with their actions or stated intent.

When's the last time a politician's stated intent been complete truth? If An American politician can feed you a line of WMD intent, then certainly we can allow Soviet leaders some ulterior or other than stated intent as well.

Afghainstan was unlike the general Soviet theme to spread in other places in the world. If they wanted to spread beyond Afghanistan, then they would have had to deal with the Americans and the British in Pakistan/India and the Chinese in China. Since 1979 kicked the Americans and the Brits out of Iran, they could have possibly worked their way towards that country, but Khomeini's mission would not have allowed it. Perhaps if the Soviet Union wasn't focused so intently on Afghanistan, Khomeini could have received support against Iraq, but the circumstances just wasn't going to allow it.

Afghainstan was every bit about those bordering tribes that shared territory on either side of the Afghani and Soviet Bloc borders.
 
There is no such thing as Islamic Democracy. Many Islamic countries have adopted the outward forms of democracy, but they are not democratic states. Democracy is exclusively a Western concept. No other civilization has replicated the idea. None.
 
Mohamed ElBaradei is about to address the protesters in Tahrir Square (and a couple hours ago Mubarak met with his military commanders). Might ElBaradei be about to announce that Mubarak has fled the country?
 
There is no such thing as Islamic Democracy. Many Islamic countries have adopted the outward forms of democracy, but they are not democratic states.

Mali? Indonesia?

Albert Di Salvo said:
Democracy is exclusively a Western concept. No other civilization has replicated the idea. None.

India? Japan? Korea? Taiwan? Botswana? Ghana?
 
LOL!

Islamic democracy like Iran?

Where they hang Gays from lampposts and treat women like dogs?

Yes...but they do it by a popular vote...
 
When's the last time a politician's stated intent been complete truth? If An American politician can feed you a line of WMD intent, then certainly we can allow Soviet leaders some ulterior or other than stated intent as well.

Afghainstan was unlike the general Soviet theme to spread in other places in the world. If they wanted to spread beyond Afghanistan, then they would have had to deal with the Americans and the British in Pakistan/India and the Chinese in China. Since 1979 kicked the Americans and the Brits out of Iran, they could have possibly worked their way towards that country, but Khomeini's mission would not have allowed it. Perhaps if the Soviet Union wasn't focused so intently on Afghanistan, Khomeini could have received support against Iraq, but the circumstances just wasn't going to allow it.

Afghainstan was every bit about those bordering tribes that shared territory on either side of the Afghani and Soviet Bloc borders.

The USSR was pretty good at backing up their word. They didnt get the chance to spread beyond Afghanistan because we got involved. The election of Reagan didnt help their cause either. He basically spent the Soviets out of existence.
 
Mali? Indonesia?



India? Japan? Korea? Taiwan? Botswana? Ghana?

Imo Mali and Indonesia may be proto democracies, but they are not democratic states in the sense known in the west. As western power and influence recede they will have less and less of a motive to pursue democracy.

India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Botswana and Ghana had democracy imposed on them as a result of western colonialism or domination. Democracy is not native to any of those states. We will see how long democracy survives. Taiwan will not remain democratic state because it will be absorbed into the PRC which is the greatest authoritarian power on earth.

America has been the main motivator for the spread of democracy. But the American phase of the Western Era of world history has ended. Democracy is being rolled back. Look at Russia.
 
There is no such thing as Islamic Democracy. Many Islamic countries have adopted the outward forms of democracy, but they are not democratic states. Democracy is exclusively a Western concept. No other civilization has replicated the idea. None.

There are many forms of democracy. Even democracy in Europe has a different face than what we see in America. Don't make the mistake that every nation has to be "Vermont" in order to be a democracy.
 
The USSR was pretty good at backing up their word. They didnt get the chance to spread beyond Afghanistan because we got involved. The election of Reagan didnt help their cause either. He basically spent the Soviets out of existence.

Well, no argument here. But the Soviets weren't going anywhere beyond Afghanistan if they succeeded. It would have placed them directly on our door steps, which is what the super powers of the Cold War generally avoided.
 
There are many forms of democracy. Even democracy in Europe has a different face than what we see in America. Don't make the mistake that every nation has to be "Vermont" in order to be a democracy.

What about the Islamic Republic of Iran? They hold regulare elections. Is Iran a democracy?
 
LOL!

Islamic democracy like Iran?

Where they hang Gays from lampposts and treat women like dogs?

An Islamic Democracy is PRECISELY what Iran has.

Hang gays and treat women like dogs.

That IS Islamic Democracy.

Its why the MB is an enemy of the region, Egypt and the West.
 
Imo Mali and Indonesia may be proto democracies, but they are not democratic states in the sense known in the west.

Why? What about them isn't democratic? (I'm thinking you don't have an answer because you don't know anything about them, and you're going to Wikipedia them to find SOME minor distinction that sets them apart from Western democracies.)

Albert Di Salvo said:
As western power and influence recede they will have less and less of a motive to pursue democracy.

Because, of course, the only reason countries ever pursue democracy is to please the United States.

Albert Di Salvo said:
India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Botswana and Ghana had democracy imposed on them as a result of western colonialism or domination. Democracy is not native to any of those states. We will see how long democracy survives. Taiwan will not remain democratic state because it will be absorbed into the PRC which is the greatest authoritarian power on earth.

The only one of those countries that had democracy "imposed" on them was Japan, and they certainly don't need American help any more to sustain democracy. Democracy didn't arise in India, Botswana, or Ghana as a result of western colonialism; it's not like the British Empire was big on promoting democracy in its clients. Democracy didn't arise there until AFTER the British Empire left. Same with Korea and Taiwan; American troops had been there for decades before either of them became democratic, so that's hardly the catalyst.

American influence can help countries establish democracies, but it's stupid to think that democracy is a result of our imposing it on them...or that we'd even be CAPABLE of imposing it on them. :roll:

Albert Di Salvo said:
America has been the main motivator for the spread of democracy. But the American phase of the Western Era of world history has ended. Democracy is being rolled back. Look at Russia.

As countries develop they are more likely to become democracies. It will happen in Russia and it will happen in China. The only reason that Russia has held out as long as it has is due to oil-induced Dutch Disease and horrendous mismanagement in the 1990s.
 
Last edited:
What about the Islamic Republic of Iran? They hold regulare elections. Is Iran a democracy?

Democracy isn't defined by an open and transparent system of governance that grants extensive freedoms. Nor is it defined by a robust electoral system.

I personally think this is wrong.

Iran (i believe) is a theocracy and it would be an insult to us to call it a "Democracy".
 
Last edited:
You think that the USSR would have conquered Afghanistan and THEN be happy and not look to expand?

No i dont think that. That has nothing to do with what i was saying. Focusing our energy on the immediate areas of interest to us would have prevented this anyway. Afghanistan did zilch.


Please explain how responding to the worst attack on American soil in the history of the country, killing thousands, equates to invasive meddling and making Afghanistan a victim?

Read the full discussion before butting in. We where talking about the Cold War, your discussing something entirely different.
 
Last edited:
What about the Islamic Republic of Iran? They hold regulare elections. Is Iran a democracy?

A corrupt one.


There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Iran, specifically, is a theocratic republic.
 
A corrupt one.

Iran, specifically, is a theocratic republic.

And I must disagree with you here. Going through the motions of elections does not make a nation a democracy, even a corrupt one. Saddam Hussein held elections; the Burmese junta held elections. When the outcome of elections is predetermined or irrelevant, and when citizens are not free to criticize the government, a country is not a democracy.
 
And I must disagree with you here.

Well I didn't just invent this or conclude it from reading on my own. I did look it up. See the links? Isn't a "theocratic republic" a type of government that means they follow basic laws and rights? Doesn't this refer to an oligarchic government where the ruler is be a supreme deity? Or a religious leader, such as a priest, leads? It sounds pretty close to Iran to me.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_type_of_government_does_Iran_have#ixzz1CYHL7Qth





You're not really disagreeing with me. My center of study focus has never really been Iran.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom