Smooth Running Democracies

[piercehawkeye45]

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

Originally Posted by Aretha's Doctor

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.

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

Originally Posted by Aretha's Doctor

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.

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.

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

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.

Originally Posted by regular.joe

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.

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

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.

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.