- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do you think the USA should promote democracy globally or not give a shite?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:23 pm to cokebottleag
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:23 pm to cokebottleag
There are more than 2 kinds of govt. It's not just 'Democratic Republic' and 'Not'. There are lots of variants of 'Not.'
Let's say there is a nation called Antiusaland. They have a constitution that calls for the destruction of America. Too weird you say? Nope, just think of college journalism departments.
They also have one religion: Church of the Gooey Death. In order to go to Heaven you need to devote your life to killing Americans.
They also have nukes and excellent delivery systems.
So, should we just leave them alone?
Let's say there is a nation called Antiusaland. They have a constitution that calls for the destruction of America. Too weird you say? Nope, just think of college journalism departments.
They also have one religion: Church of the Gooey Death. In order to go to Heaven you need to devote your life to killing Americans.
They also have nukes and excellent delivery systems.
So, should we just leave them alone?
0
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:24 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Promoting democracy globally is a ruse, an Orwellian term used by those in power to convince naive liberals that it's ok to bomb women and children because we're the good guys.
Exactly
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:27 pm to cokebottleag
It depends on what people believe republics and democracy to be. Is Iran a democracy? It certainly has elements, but none of us would consider it a democracy, even though they have elections at pretty much every level save for the supreme leader.
Generally the promotion of republican ideas is an excuse for some other aim.
At the same time, I think parliamentarian democracy is best suited to dealing with the cosmopolitan make up of most countries, as the nation-state system that Europe attempted to export after WWI hasn't fit neatly into the demographics of those formerly colonized countries (either by Islamic or Western empires), which are often split along multiple levels. The best example of this is India, which has been a fairly robust republic which is still flexible enough to deal with its myriad of ethnic, religious, language, and economic divides.
That's not to say that I think democratic republicanism is the best form of government, but I think it's the best form to deal with the transitory state that most countries find themselves in at the moment.
Generally the promotion of republican ideas is an excuse for some other aim.
At the same time, I think parliamentarian democracy is best suited to dealing with the cosmopolitan make up of most countries, as the nation-state system that Europe attempted to export after WWI hasn't fit neatly into the demographics of those formerly colonized countries (either by Islamic or Western empires), which are often split along multiple levels. The best example of this is India, which has been a fairly robust republic which is still flexible enough to deal with its myriad of ethnic, religious, language, and economic divides.
That's not to say that I think democratic republicanism is the best form of government, but I think it's the best form to deal with the transitory state that most countries find themselves in at the moment.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:30 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Lol yeah right dude. There are two democracies in the world. The US and Israel. Duh.
Oddly enough, both have/had versions of internal repression of a minority group, which shows how democracies can devolve into tyranny quite easily.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:31 pm to cokebottleag
We don’t promote democracy that’s a farce to gain support for intervention.
What we do is remove leaders who are not currently favorable to our economic or diplomatic interests and replace them with a puppet government under the guise of democracy. The people’s vote likely doesn’t even count because we “monitor” the elections. So we get the desired results.
Bashar al Assad is a prime example. People in Syria were happy with him. We just want him gone because he is more favorable to Russia’s interests in regards to a massive pipeline deal.
If we cared about democracy and human rights we would have been at war with many African countries.
What we do is remove leaders who are not currently favorable to our economic or diplomatic interests and replace them with a puppet government under the guise of democracy. The people’s vote likely doesn’t even count because we “monitor” the elections. So we get the desired results.
Bashar al Assad is a prime example. People in Syria were happy with him. We just want him gone because he is more favorable to Russia’s interests in regards to a massive pipeline deal.
If we cared about democracy and human rights we would have been at war with many African countries.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:32 pm to deltaland
quote:
Bashar al Assad is a prime example. People in Syria were happy with him. We just want him gone because he is more favorable to Russia’s interests in regards to a massive pipeline deal.
Pretty much. I actually like Asaad as ME leaders go. He's certainlyess violent than any of the last 15 or so US presidents.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:33 pm to cokebottleag
Not everyone wants or deserves democracy.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:35 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Oddly enough, both have/had versions of internal repression of a minority group, which shows how democracies can devolve into tyranny quite easily.
Oh most definitely. Democracy is faced with the constant choice of expanding its franchise and losing its national identity to differing interest, or forcefully repressing those who want franchise under the law.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:36 pm to cokebottleag
What I would propose is an international scaled tariff/trade system where tariffs are standardized based on the working, quality control, safety, and human rights standards of one's countries. The more equal their levels, the more equal their tariffs. Where there is an imbalance (i.e. one country has strict regulations and protects civil rights while the other country is an authoritarian dictatorship with no restrictions on state-owned businesses) then there is a larger tariff on goods flowing from the authoritarian country to the other nation than the other way around. You use this policy as a carrot to encourage societies to be more democratic, to ensure customers are getting what was advertised, to protect their workers from abuse and unsafe working conditions, and to provide a real monetary, short-term incentive to protect the environment from pollution.
At the highest level, trade would be completely free of any and all restrictions because all inspection criteria and standards, even, would be identical.
At the highest level, trade would be completely free of any and all restrictions because all inspection criteria and standards, even, would be identical.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:42 pm to kingbob
quote:
What I would propose is an international scaled tariff/trade system where tariffs are standardized based on the working, quality control, safety, and human rights standards of one's countries. The more equal their levels, the more equal their tariffs. Where there is an imbalance (i.e. one country has strict regulations and protects civil rights while the other country is an authoritarian dictatorship with no restrictions on state-owned businesses) then there is a larger tariff on goods flowing from the authoritarian country to the other nation than the other way around. You use this policy as a carrot to encourage societies to be more democratic, to ensure customers are getting what was advertised, to protect their workers from abuse and unsafe working conditions, and to provide a real monetary, short-term incentive to protect the environment from pollution.
This is peak globalism. It basically already exists in a weaker, less formal form. This is the precise recipe for endless conflict, extreme totalitarianism, and highly impoverished societies propping up the most wealthy societies.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:44 pm to MrCarton
quote:
This is peak globalism.
Literally the exact opposite of what we do now where the less free countries that pollute like crazy and use virtual slave labor have high tariffs on goods from developed nations while those developed nations have low tariffs, no tariffs or sometimes even subsidize the goods coming over from those developing nations.
Globalism isn't always necessarily a bad thing.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:44 pm to cokebottleag
I dont care what other countries are democratic or not either.
But where do you draw the line? China could take over Asia if they wanted. Russia could take back Eastern Europe. Do you just let that happen?
The more powerful take over the weaker..Iraq/Kuwait etc.
But where do you draw the line? China could take over Asia if they wanted. Russia could take back Eastern Europe. Do you just let that happen?
The more powerful take over the weaker..Iraq/Kuwait etc.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:46 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Democracy is faced with the constant choice of expanding its franchise and losing its national identity to differing interest, or forcefully repressing those who want franchise under the law.
Which is why I think a decentralized system would work best. I'm so skeptical of that system developing that I'd prefer a status quo.
One of my favorite myths is that under the old imperial system interests weren't represented. The best example I can think of is the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Effectively there were two administrations parallel to one another in the empire. The Austrian side did not attempt to "Germanize" its inhabitants, showcased by the prominent role that Czechs played in its administration, supported by an aristocracy made up of Germans, Croats, and ethnic Poles, in addition to Hungarian Magyars. In contrast, the Hungarians attempted to "Magyarize" their portion of the empire, effectively following the Westphalian system of one nation, one culture, one language. Obviously this caused lots of tension with ethnic minorities, who felt disenfranchised. Modern governments, even in repressive states, have to be much more cosmopolitan than in previous eras, as outside of some isolated groups in places like Afghanistan, the average subject in general has much more information. Hence why Assad was popular with minorities and resented by Syrian Sunni Arabs, because cosmopolitanism decreases their access to power, despite the fact that many Sunni Arabs .
The need for cosmopolitanism is also why I think Saudi Arabia is doomed, as it is by far the largest country that is an absolute monarchy, and is far more diverse on numerous levels. Without some flexibility resentment among out-groups grows, increasing each generation until it explodes.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:49 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Promoting democracy globally is a ruse, an Orwellian term used by those in power to convince naive liberals that it's ok to bomb women and children because we're the good guys.
Lol. What? I was totally following you until you got to the middle there. Everyone knows that Republicans are the ones that are easily convinced into war
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:49 pm to kingbob
quote:
Globalism isn't always necessarily a bad thing.
Globalization isn't a bad thing, as it eases burden of doing business. I always took Globalism to mean that the world was still controlled by elites. The system you suggest would require international bodies with great leeway to ensure enforcement, or would require the US to continue to be the referee, which is an impossible situation.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:50 pm to Ebbandflow
Want to run down thw votes in Congress for or against war?
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:55 pm to crazy4lsu
Seems like an inspection regime and an accreditation process. Let's say there's 5 tiers. Every 4 years or so, an inspection process verifies which tier a country belongs to. The better the tier, the more easily that country can access the markets of those larger, developed, consumerist nations. This gives the incentive for those developing nations to develop in such a way that will move them up the tiers. The tiers are not designed to be a static caste system, but rather a ladder countries are encouraged to climb. Countries that invest in making their nations more free, their products more safe, and their environments less polluted will steadily move up the ladder. Each rung makes them more competitive on the open market.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:58 pm to roadGator
quote:
Want to run down thw votes in Congress for or against war?
Lol. Ok. I will go first.
United States House of Representatives Edit
Part yes Nays NotVoting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3
215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:
6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
Thats for Iraq. The dumbest bullshite from you idiots.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 12:59 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
not give a shite?
Preventing the spread of communism is fine.
Keeping the Western Hemisphere under control is fine.
Otherwise, enough
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News