can we go home now?

[dotcoma]

Quote by: Matt W Hmmm...Turkey & Greece...the ancient Greek Cities...India & Pakistan....and who knows how many little scraps in South America? Certainly, the US looks like a pretty belligerent democracy to me...

Ancienct Greece lol....you had to go that far back? Those were not even modern-day democracies, and Pakistan and India have not actually gone to war.

Also, you are missing the point when you mention the US-it has not fought OTHER DEMOCRACIES.

A democracy will submit to the standards of a non-democracy because it fears the non-democracy taking the upper hand (since non-democracies are far more efficient when it comes to decision-making/mass-mobilization).

[IndieC]

What do you mean India and Pakistan have not actually gone to war! There have been three wars since their independence, just look:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpo...akistan%20Wars

Oh, and you say that the US has not fought other democracies? Well... actually, it all depends on your definition of a Democracy, and don't bother showing me some dictionary definition, Democracy is an Ideological concept which has been disputed since the days of the Athenian Democracy in Ancient Greece, and there is no fixed definition of a Democracy.

Anyway, a perfect democracy is an Anarchy, where the people (Demo) have the power, or rule (cracy), and i'm sure the US has intervened in places where Anarchy has got out of hand.

I will grant you this though, it has never fought an other Liberal Democracy. In fact, Liberal Democracies have never fought, well, no states which call themselves Liberal Democracies have ever fought each other (excluding friendly fire of course).

[dotcoma]

Indie, I could have been more clear. India and Pakistan did not fight as consolidated democracies. And yes, I was getting at what you mentioned-liberal democracies do not fight each other.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Matt W Rainbow:- You asked about neo-colonialism, G.Adams provided you with a definition. You are obviously missing the point- Al-Sadr may have a political agenda, but on this one point, how many Iraqis agree with him? That's why the SWP was mentioned - they are a blip on most peoples' radar, but most people in the UK agreed with their position on the war - and still do.

I did not ask for any definition on "neo-colonialism". It was rather a rhetorical question, which we should obviously have been familiar with, prior entering a debate for a speciafic subject. That is why I do not see the reason G.Adams to submit the answer.

As I stated previously, al-Sadr's political fundaments are completely unacceptable by Iraqi government - at the stage he (al-Sadr) stands on. Since Iraqi governing body represents (officailly or unofficially yet) majority of Iraqi people, then al-Sadr's activity contradicts with Iraq's policy, as of today.

Whether people in U.K. agree or not the war in Iraq, that would be a factor "if" both - al-Sadr and U.K. people - have the same or similar agenda. Such base does not exist.
Creating a parallel to the same or similar statements, may suggest that both have the same or similar goal. That is the difference, since both differ significantly.

However, I understand his (G.Adams) points.

[Matt W]

The US has not fought other democracies, but it has been involved in pre-emptive attacks against other countries - Vietnam, Iraq, etc....this is by no means a 'normal' act for any democracy....

[Nono]

Quote by: dotcoma The US-it has not fought OTHER DEMOCRACIES.

Well it has certainly undermined (and caused a great deal of blood to flow in) other democracies. One thinks of Nicaragua and Chile right off the bat. Yep, people have sometimes paid dearly for voting ahh the wrong way.

[IndieC]

Actually, Matt, it is a 'normal' act for a lot of Democracies. Take the UK and France for examples, they invaded the Suez canal in 1957. Or even Israel, with its incursions into the West Bank and the Gaza strip. What's more, you can look at Russia, which is a kind of Democracy, if not quite Liberal yet, and its intervenion in Chechnya. Even better, the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia in 1999. Ok, that was to stop ethnic cleansing, but they were pretty stupid about it. They disarmed all the Serbs, and left the Albanians alone. Guess what's happening now? It's going the other way, and NATO has to try and protect the Serbs from the Albanians who are now doing the ethnic cleansing.

Anyway, my main point is, going to war isn't exactly uncommon for Democracies. We also have to take into account that the UK has almost always gone to war with the US whenever the US says they should, so it's not all about the US and its belligerent policies.

[IndieC]

Nono, they weren't Liberal Democracies, so your point has no argument in it, given dotcoma's last post.

[Matt W]

Good point, well made. I shall think some more on this...

[Gorgo]

Quote by: IndieC Ok, that was to stop ethnic cleansing

Purportedly to stop ethnic cleansing, which did not exist. Just like a dictatorship did not exist.

[Nono]

Quote by: IndieC Nono, they weren't Liberal Democracies, so your point has no argument in it, given dotcoma's last post.

Have I missed a comprehensive definition of "liberal democracy" here? I'll grant that Nicaragua wasn't what I'd call a liberal democracy -- they'd just overthrown Samoza and were much into the whole revolutionary thing. But I think the Chileans might give you a hard time on that point.

Since it all seems to turn on the word "liberal", maybe we should clear that up.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Nono Since it all seems to turn on the word "liberal", maybe we should clear that up.

In other words, the United States only attacks the people that are on the side of the devil, and the United States is by definition on the side of God.

[dotcoma]

Not at all Gorgo. You just do not understand the situations that occur between democracies + democracies versus democracies and non-democracies.

Democracies, as I know I have mentioned before, debate issues. Think of how much (no matter how empty it may have been) Bush pushed his agenda to the American/World audience. A democracy is slow and inefficient. My point is that democracies are able to come to common ground, and resolve an issue through extensive dialogue.

Non democracies however can mobilize armies faster, have no opposition to contend with, and could not give a damn what the public thinks of their actions. This then influences the democracy involved to pre-empt, and attempt to get the non-democracy before it gets them/threatens their interests. Perhaps that is why Bush made Iraq out to be such an immediate threat. Only then would our government be ready to pre-empt, and rout the efficient dictatorship of Iraq.

And yes, a proper definition of liberal democracy is in order.

[Gorgo]

Right. Had there been any kind of democracy, Bush would not be attacking other countries contrary to world opinion. His elites made him try to garner some support, but when he didn't get it, he ignored it all and any pretense of democracy was torn away.

Quote by: dotcoma Bush pushed his agenda to the American/World audience.

[Nono]

Yes, I think it's fair to say that Bush scaremongered the nation into sidestepping the the sort of debate that is the very stuff of democracy: banging away about non-existent threats until decidedly illiberal legistlation was rammed through without the legislators even reading it.
Of course, you could argue that that's democracy: those guys were duly elected.

But that brings us around to the subject of elections. A mockery was made of the democratic process in the US last November. I wonder at this point whether the US really deserves to belong to the democratic club. Maybe it should clean up its own act, then reapply.

[dotcoma]

Let's stay on topic here. This is not another opportunity to scream election fraud/bush lied to us.

My point regarding Iraq was that a democracy is likely to pre-empt when it deals with a non-democracy-because of the fear of the efficiency of a non-democratic leadership.

[Matt W]

Depends. Several democracies don't attack unless directly attacked. Proving a 'clear and present danger' to the nation is a whole lot easier if you're under attack.

[Nono]

Listen good, dotcoma:

This thread has been wandering a bit anyway. The subject at the moment seems to be how the US conducts itself 'as a democracy'. It isn't, therefore, off topic to consider whether the US fits that particular bill. Or is that a matter of blind faith?

And ranting about "scream election fraud/bush lied to us" is just that: rant.

You're not afraid of an open and frank appraisal of American democracy, are you dotcoma?

[dotcoma]

Actually, the topic right now was regarding the likelihood of a democracy attacking another democracy, and the nature of a democracy when engaging a non-democracy. Perhaps you should scroll up?

I called you on being off-topic because I have seen so many topics here turn into the same anti-Iraqi invasion/election fraud.

I want some meaningful debate, not some typical gushing of pre-determined stances from the same few people.

The US is a liberal democracy. Despite the corruption, and despite the problems, I think it is safe to say that my vote still matters, my elected officials still can be crushed by public opinion, and the public does not view solutions in government being solved by creating a new system-that sounds fairly consolidated and liberal to me.

[Nono]

Sorry, but I believe -- without in any way wishing to be doctrinaire -- that the health of American democracy is at the very heart of this discussion, since the events of the past two years in Iraq are a very direct effect of what goes on in the US.

Indeed, if you scroll up you see that bishop launched this thread with a question about the weight of public opinion in Iraq and its interaction with the US in the form of an armed presence.

Quote by: dotcoma I think it is safe to say that my vote still matters,* my elected officials still can be crushed by public opinion, and the public does not view solutions in government being solved by creating a new system-that sounds fairly consolidated and liberal to me.

If those are your criteria, then I think you'd better broaden membership of the liberal democratic club, admitting pre-73 Chile and post-79 Nicaragua for starters.

* I'm taking it you're not black and living in Cleveland. :)