Spreading Democracy - but not at gunpoint

[Gorgo]

No question that you can't please everyone. Including people who think that people who disagree with them are "conspiracy theorists."

[Catch 22]

Quote by: RickSp That paragraph alone was sufficiently convoluted as to make parsing it of questionable utility. I did like the Marshall Plan as a conspiracy to fund French intervention in Vietnam. Not suprising that you provided links to Chomsky. His conspiracies always have a mobious-like quality to them. Or perhaps they are more like Escher's snakes, perpetually twisting and turning, one end devouring the other. I do agree that there was much about the Marshall Plan that was bad. I'm not convinced that the Marshall Plan was a good idea or even necessary. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that if the US had not enacted the Mashall Plan, there would be Brits bitching about that too.

The fact remains that the Marshall plan was designed to plug up the massive capital flight taking place in erupt after the war. It is true that by shoveling money into reconstruction the Us economy inevitably lost money, but any fool could see that long term economic "growth" for the capitalists meant that foreign markets, particularly rich foreign markets needed to be stable and mature. I’m not saying that this was a bad thing for Europe, it probably saved them from further totalitarianism but it certainly came at a high price of economic independence.

[RickSp]

Quote by: jose Some comments by ron paul 15.  What if we discover that democracy can’t be spread with force of arms? 16.  What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, freemarkets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force? http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...5/cr012605.htm I hope this is "grown up" and "in line" enough to promote consructive debate.

I think Ron Paul is on target, more or less. His suggestion that "democracy" may be "deeply flawed" seems odd. Even in a society of "liberty, property rights, freemarkets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government" one would still expect a functioning democracy. Even in a republic which respects the rights of individuals, voting is still a reasonably effective means of making certain collective choices.

[Chris the Chees]

It seems most sadistic to burst the infantile bubble that is your view of history, however for the sake of accuracy; your dilettante understanding of history must be addressed.

Then again your your conventional revisionist accounting of post WWII rebuilding efforts is shallow at best.

This I am sorry to say is false. The view I hold is certainly not a revisionist view point, historians have long been critical of the pseudo-altruistic Marshall plan. Indeed I would hasten to say that it is indeed your view which is revisionist, the views of the overtly patriotic and bias view American rightwing which have taken a mutually beneficial treaty and turned it into a grand gift package donated by a caring American nation.

Cheese's claim in a nutshell is that here was nothing altruistic about the Marshall Plan because America benefited from it as well as Europe.

It's "Chees".

A truly accurate claim, unless of course you disagree that the USA benefited as much as, if not more than, the European nations in the long term. Judging modern day economic superiority, it looks like the Marshall plan was very beneficial for American interests.

The US domestic market was vastly larger than any European markets at the time.

Indeed, it had been fuelled by European demand during the war years, and still reliant on European investment. Economically broken nations cannot purchase American goods.

the transfer of billions to Europe hurt the US economy.

Possibly the smartest move the USA ever made economically, was to think in a long term perspective. It does not alter the fact that the Marshall plan was a part of an economic strategy which the USA had been successfully employing for the previous ten years. The same strategy which had been used during the "Great War" and in the inter war period, until the USA moved towards a more isolationist stance.

[RickSp]

Whatever Chees. Personally I do find bitching Brits exceedingly boring but that is just me. Amusing how I have been called a lefty for so long on this forum now to have been moved back rightward by the equally clueless. At this point correcting anyone seems pointless.

Interesting contrast - the Marshall Plan where the US helped rebuild both the vanquished and the tattered victors, as compared to the Versailles treaty of the previous Great War where the victors merely looted and plundered in the traditional manner. Not that that worked out too well either. Interesting too that in 1947 the US extended a helping hand while the Brits went about nationalizing everything possible. Another failure. But so what else is new?

[Catch 22]

chris and rick could you guys keep the name calling and hostility to a minumum? thanks

[rmnunez]

My impression is that the Marshall Plan had little to do with charity or altruism, it was undertaken primarily to foster economic growth and job creation as it was believed their lack would foster Communist expansion among the allies. Clearly the reconstruction of Europe helped the US economy, but I doubt this was undertaken specifically for this purpose, it was really part of the effort to contain communist expansion.

As to whether democracy can be spread at gunpoint, it might be premature to say so, but in Afghanistan and now Iraq it seems this can be the case.

[Gorgo]

What you see in Iraq and Afghanistan is voting, not democracy. There is lots of voting in Cuba.

[Chris the Chees]

[edit]message deleted by mods since it was pure insult[/edit]

[RickSp]

[edit]message deleted by mods since it was pure insult[/edit]

[Matt W]

Did either of you read the moderator comment? Shut it. Get on with the debate, rather than the insults.

[Catch 22]

Quote by: Matt W Did either of you read the moderator comment? Shut it. Get on with the debate, rather than the insults.

thanks matt.

now can you guys stop the arguing or must I delete more posts?

[MerlinsByte]

RickSp writes ;Helen Thomas gets it right - democracy and freedom can not be spread at gunpoint.


Merlin responds; How did we here in the good ole' USA get our independence from England RickSp? I feel that revolution installed from the inside or outside is quicker when implemented with the barrel of a gun. Morally correct? Maybe. The morals are related in direct proportion to which side you happen to find yourself on.

MB

[MerlinsByte]

PS the deposed leader of Iraq and the hard-liners of his now defunct regime would consider our invasion and the next government authority a revolution or outright coup wouldn't he (they)"? And I don't think we have the moral high ground to be building nations either, our morals are suspect, and rightly so, to the dumbest dullard.

MB