Author Topic: Another democracy heard from... (Read 590 times)

oboe · « **on:** April 16, 2005, 02:58:42 PM »

Ecuador's president just 'dissolved' his country's Supreme Court:

http://www.comcast.net/news/international/index.jsp?cat=INTERNATIONAL&fn=/2005/04/16/109025.html

Those dang judicial branches can be a real thorn in the side!

I wonder if we are going to have some kind of return policy for all the democracies we are borrowing so much money to spread over the world?

john9001 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 16, 2005, 04:11:50 PM »

i agree with oboe, we should be supporting dictatorships instead of democracies.....

oboe · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2005, 05:39:52 PM »

Doesn't appear to be much difference between democracy and dictatorship in Ecuador's case though, does there?

To be fair, I'm unsure how much the US was involved in the establishment of Ecuador's "democracy", but it still serves as an example to me, along with Mexico, that democracies are not pancea to the world's problems. (Inspite of the popular rhetoric to the contrary.)

VOR · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2005, 10:02:08 PM »

Propose a solution.

oboe · « **Reply #4 on:** April 16, 2005, 10:20:24 PM »

Are you admitting there is a problem? I'm not sure anybody else thinks there is.

lazs2 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2005, 08:59:46 AM »

are you admitting that a democracy only becomes a problem wihen..... it ceases to be a democracy?

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:03:25 AM »

LOL!

Shack.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2005, 09:11:41 AM »

oboe · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2005, 10:51:03 AM »

Is it OK that the democracy we set up in Afghanistan in a short amount of time has become the world leader in opium exports? Could anyone have predicted that? And how are the money and power created by the Afghan drug cartels going to influence its young democracy? Maybe we spending a lot of money (which again, we don't have) to set up democracies that will very quickly cease to be democracies?

That's my big concern. Seems like a crap shoot to me, with human nature loading the dice against us.

I just don't like messing around in other people's business I guess. Which when I think about it, should be a trait of conservative thinking. When I look at the government's antics surrounding the Terry Schiavo case, our foreigh policy, and our national deficit it seems to me we have anything but conservatives in power here.

Am I sounding like Pat Buchanan?

john9001 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2005, 11:03:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe

I just don't like messing around in other people's business I guess.

short history.

AQ had bases in afganistan.

US asked the taliban govt to turn over AQ leaders and destroy AQ bases.

taliban said "no way"

US invades afgan with support of afgan rebels.

--------

afgan was exporting opium before the US got there.

US did not go to afgan to start a democracy but to get the AQ

Toad · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2005, 11:06:35 AM »

Did you like Afghanistan better when it was a base for A-Q with the blessing of the Taliban?

Has Afghanistan historically been a big-time poppy growing country no matter who held the reins of power?

Did you really expect that to stop immediately?

oboe · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2005, 11:12:08 AM »

Good point John.

I wasn't opposed to the action in Afghanistan because OBL's actions made it our business. I'd feel alot better about it, though, if he were sitting in a cell at Gitmo.

The Iraq thing I always had misgivings about, and it seems the facts revealed about the lack of WMDs has justified those. We're there now, and we will be for perpetuity, IMO.

Looking forward from here, how many other democracy building missions are we going to underwrite? Syria? Iran? Saudia Arabia? Its just unclear to me what adventures are next in store for American troops under Bush.

Toad: As I understand it, one thing the Taliban did was to eradicate the opium production in Afghanistan. After they fell,
opium production returned with a vengeance.

Toad · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2005, 11:17:12 AM »

OK, let's assume you are right.

Is the opium production better or worse than the Taliban?

If it takes denying women the right to an education, killing them for proven or unproven adultery, keeping the country a backward 5th world country, etc., etc., to control opium production, which do you choose?

Don't even consider the A-Q factor in that response. What do you think?

oboe · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2005, 01:42:10 PM »

I think the mission of the US military is to provide for national defense. I don't think its correct to use it as a foreign policy tool to force regime change in countries, who by our standards, mistreat their populations. There are other ways to work for regime change, without committing our regular (and Reserve) troops to hostile situations on foreign soil.

If we are talking about risking our sons and daughters lives, then it better be a matter of compelling national interest, IMO.

Do you agree?

Toad · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2005, 01:45:12 PM »

I most certainly do.

However, as it has been pointed out several times, SOMETHING has to replace dictatorship.

IIRC, you support the Afghanistan invasion and the removal of the Taliban.

Well... SOMETHING has to replace them. Further, since WE removed the Taliban, WE have go to do the replacing. (We meaning all the nations involved. So everyone un-bunch their shorts.)

Now, it'd be nice if you could wave Mr. Mephistos wand and shout "abracadabra.... DEMOCRACY IN AFGHANISTAN!!!" but it doesn't work that way.

We're going to have to stick with them and try to help them get established?

Do you agree?