Sorry, DanaC, but I do not agree with you.

Note that my assessment of American instability is based upon its' record of "democratic" deeds. You may have misundestood me to have included it's economy, etc. I maintain that the U.S. is not up to international standards of carrying out the practices of democratic principles, therefore I consider it to be "unstable" in that regard.

As far as our differences in view on Arab opinion and American "fascism" - those differences stand. The U.S has actually destroyed democracy around the world rather than encourage it.

The definition of fascism is not that it destroys democracy around the world. I wholeheartedly agree that America's foreign policy has, for a very long time, been damaging to many other nations. I also agree that America has on many occassions subverted the actual democratic will of other nations in order to create or maintain conditions favourable to its own needs.

None of this shows instability in America, nor does it show instability within the American democratic system. It simply shows that America can and has, in many instances, had a damaging effect on other nations' attempts at democracy. That is not the same thing as them being an unstable democracy. They may cause instability, but they themselves are very stable.

America may well be a factor in the decisions made by other nations. Some Arab nations have chosen paths which, in my view, are entirely at odds with any real concept of human rights and individual freedoms. Saudi Arabia does not bar women from driving because they see American democracy rampaging about the Middle East. Iran does not sanction strange men hitting women because they dare to step into the street without covering their faces, on account of America's wars and international meddling. Nor can America be held accountable for systems which disallow female suffrage and count homosexuality as a capital offence. That hold the death penalty as an option for those who change their faith and consider Trade Unions a dangerous and unacceptable development.

America may be one of the factors which serve to deepen those trends, and drive those nations further into themselves. But they are not the cause.

Holy crap - are you serious??? Are you a sock puppet for Radar?

What exactly do you mean by democratic deeds? For discussion sake, please cite examples of democratic deeds.

Our form of democracy, and our foreign policy are two very different things. They are connected in a way, the guys who ultimately make our foreign policy are elected. If the people in these United States do not agree with those decisions it takes 2 to 4 years to make that change. The cool thing is this: we don't have to have an armed rebellion cause we don't like those decisions. We can vote them back to the house they came from.

Country's are like adults, there are very few victims in this world. We are all mostly volunteers. Blaming the U.S. for the internal problems of many of the country's problems in the world is a bit childish. As countries and individuals, we all make decisions based on self that put us where we are today, in bed with who ever we may be in bed with.

Fairly smart stuff going on in this thread. :corn:

You only see the real trouble coming out of the undemocracies, though. When was the last time a democratic nation fought a really bitter war with another democratic nation? Democracies are slow to start wars, while nondemocracies aren't. This is because of the relative degree of consensus required.

Personally I've got no problem at all with constitutional monarchies, even though I've not mentioned that much if at all. No crying need to dance on their scattered bones.

Internally, the United States is very stable and consistent. Its foreign policy is a bit different.

Define democratic principles? That is one of the many words (patriot, freedom) that gets thrown around without a solid definition and is abused often.

True, but internal and foreign policy do not have to be related and this is shown throughout history. Both the Athenians and Romans were imperialistic on foreign policy, but their internal policy was more or less tolerable.

I slightly disagree. With the recent outrage at Saudi Arabia about the girl being whipped when reporting being raped, there was a outburst of liberal arguments that said this is unacceptable and we have to change their actions. While I get queasy with the mindset behind it (I don't' think we should control other nations), in this case the United States can have tremendous control over how Arabs rulers under our control, Saudi Arabia for example, view unpopular laws within their own country. If we drop support, the regimes will change.

I don't know. We have people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe only because the US allows them to be in power. If someone who went against Western interests came to power, they will be overthrown very quickly.

That problem is not within the domain of America. That problem currently is and remains within the domain of neighboring nations - especially South Africa. Doing too much can be just as destructive as doing nothing. There exists a fine line between when to and when to not act. The world is still learning this skill - part of something called a new world order.

The Balkans is the perfect example of how to solve problems. US remained completely detached from a problem that was the domain of Europe. That July when Clinton finally decided Europe had failed is when the domain changed; when the US (NATO) took over. Suddenly British French Rapid Reaction Forces executed so viciously and effectively that the Serbs took losses. An American armor column entered with the attitude of being the "meanest dog in the neighborhood". It could not have worked better. A solution executed so politically smart (the military being only a lesser supporting function) that Milosevic even negotiated himself out of a job. Dayton was the most perfect example of how to solve such violence.

My post back then expressed a great fear that Clinton had acted prematurely - that the Balkans were not yet ready for a solution. But Clinton proved to be the master. Clinton's subordinates - especially Holbrook - proved to be most superb tacticians. In the past 50 years, the Balkan's remains a perfect example of how and when the world must solve local (national) problems.

Why were the Balkans solved so effectively? A problem must be left first to the locals - left to fester - before more exterior powers can or should be involved. It is an art that the world is still struggling to learn.

Mugabe has been a regional problem in Africa. He is also a Commonwealth problem. The US (for now) has no dog in this fight. National (local) powers, regional powers, and the world in general must learn where this fine line is between letting them solve their own problems AND 'forcing' assistance.

We (the world) are still struggling, like children, with this new concept - this new world order. How to be cooperative and helpful without acting as a colonial power - without making enemies of everyone (ie mistakes in Iraq, Lebanon, Somolia, Vietnam).

Rwanda and Brunei were a mistake - in hindsight. Darfur is where regional powers must learn to take responsibility. But it appears international powers remain too ignorant (intentionally for self serving reasons) to realize when it is time to take charge. Darfur may have festered for too long, in part, because the American president is that dumb, the administration has special interests tied to offending parties who easily play this dumb administration, and because European powers have not yet learned to act as one. But again, we the world have much to learn (especially those who attack the UN in the name of their political agendas and mental pettiness).

Africa is unique (from the Balkans) where too many nations have numerous internal problems - let alone deal with those of their neighbors. Where conditions can change suddenly - too quickly. We, as a world, are still struggling to learn when and how are the best times to intercede - or remain hands off. How many understand a pending disaster called Nigeria? Hands off? Yes. But different from staying ignorant.

Democracy, patriotism, and humanity have little relevance to these problems. Far more important is that these nations rise from crisis so as to never go there again. IOW how many must die gruesome deaths before that nation finally grasps what is significant? And yes, sometimes 10% or 20% of a nation’s population must be massacred because it takes that much pain to learn how to be a stable nation.

To appreciate why these nations are in trouble, well imagine too many Urbane Guerillas. Using his rationales to justify their reactions. Reactions because an agenda rather than logical through justified those actions. They feel rather than first learn what is more important. How many must die before others finally appreciate (learn from pain) how dangerous that UG type thinking is? Nations sometimes must massacre so many to gain a history they can learn from. Those lessons cannot be imposed.

In the case of Darfur, a wider solution (akin to the Balkans) is not possible due to (in part) mental incompetence within the American executive branch. Darfur being significantly different from Zimbabwe or Kenya.

Two final points. First, democracy is not the only possible solution. Some are so brainwashed by propaganda (political agendas) as to believe only democracy should be imposed everywhere. Whereas we believe it to be the best solution, it is only a belief. It does not apply to other peoples until those peoples want it. Democracy cannot be imposed. Imposed democracies don’t work. Democracy must be earned. Otherwise that democracy is unstable.

And finally the most succinct paragraph in this thread.

You've written so many interesting and thought-provoking points but I don't have the time to respond very well just now.

Anyway, I have sited America's fascism and its' record of destroying democracy aroung the world as two separate subjects - not using one to prove the other, so we're in agreement on that point - though it's growing fasicist behaviour must surely be proof of "unstable" democratic principles.

I would like to say that it's interesting that you bring up Iran however because the U.S. is certainly directly responsible for Iran's position today. To put it into your own words (though disagreeing) - America IS the cause for Iran's problems. All of them as far as I can see.

In the highest degree.

Joe. I have limited access to the internet until Monday so I can't satisfy your request (I'm sure) just now.

Just to whet your whistle though, here are a few "off the top of my head" examples, though perhaps not necessarily the most pertinent ones:

1). The invasion of Irak against the wishes of the U.N. - ignoring the democratic "majority" vote.
2). The stiffling of alternative political philosophies within the U.S. - democratic freedom of expression/choice
3). Completely un-democratic practice of denying Americans citizens to visit certain countries, punishable by imprisonment - democratic freedom of movement/travel
4). The sanctioning of torture "under certain circumstances" - democratic "whatever that might be called in English"
5). Refusal to comply with international efforts of ecological concerns - democratic "majority vote"

These examples deal with the "now" - the "today". There are tons of additional examples to site within the last few years which still effect the situation today but were implemented during the previous decades.

Will that do 'till next week?

You do know radar, don't you? C'mon fess up - you're like his Canadian cousin or something right? Seperated at birth maybe? It's ok you can tell us - we're in the cellar after all.

Well ... the only thing I'm at liberty to say at this moment is that I inherited his glasses, whch was the only thing that survived the helicopter crash at the time of his ETS. Further information cannot be devulged untill the year 2087 when it will no longer be impeded by the official secret's act. Sorry.

AHA! I knew it! A conspiracy...

You mean the conspiracy you're carring out against the ransom of your own conscience? :rollanim:

Here are my "off the top of my head" responses. (pre coffee)

1) Invading Irak - Since when does the U.N. dictate what U.S. can and cannot do? If it was so bad was the U.S. sanctioned? Is there a U.N. force helping to defend Iraq from the evil American empire? I must have missed that.
2) no idea to what you are referring.
3) Completely intelligent policy. If you wanna go into a war zone or something do NOT expect us to come in and save your ass. Tell your family not to sue the U.S. Gov't. for your stupidity either.
4) Been done forever by virtually every country. Sad but true.
5) Comply with what? Be more specific and I'll address as best I can.

Please keep in mind here that I am, by no means, a scholor or formally educated in any of this.