Debate: America is defending democracy.

tolosenc

I have a debate coming up in school, and would like your opinions about either side (they are/they aren't). Thanks.

free2fly

Well, I think that the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan believe that they are, but Bush is just using it as an excuse. I also disagree with trying to force democracy down the throats of the Iraqi people. What gives us the right to do that? It really pisses me off to know that my government is doing that! :mad:

purple'n'gold

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with defending democracy. The Americans invaded Iraq to secure the oil reserves there. Defeating the Iraqi army was never going to be a problem for them, their problem was lack of foresight. Unbelievable as it may seem they just didn’t put any thought in winning the peace

MrJoeSoap

purplengold wrote:

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with defending democracy. The Americans invaded Iraq to secure the oil reserves there. Defeating the Iraqi army was never going to be a problem for them, their problem was lack of foresight. Unbelievable as it may seem they just didn’t put any thought in winning the peace

My thoughts exactly. ^

Anyone who thinks American thoughts are pure should watch "Inside The Coup", the documentary on the Venezuelan coup a few years back. They are not defending democracy, they are pursuing their own oil interests.

Exit

MrJoeSoap wrote:

My thoughts exactly. ^

Anyone who thinks American thoughts are pure should watch "Inside The Coup", the documentary on the Venezuelan coup a few years back. They are not defending democracy, they are pursuing their own oil interests.

I was just about to come in here to mention Venezuela.

MrJoeSoap

Exit wrote:

I was just about to come in here to mention Venezuela.

Have you seen that documentary that the Irish film crew made? Best piece of Irish television I've ever seen.

purple'n'gold

Exit wrote:

I was just about to come in here to mention Venezuela.

I actually don’t think the Americans will allow the situation in Venezuela to develop much further. If I were Hugo Chavez I would be afraid, very afraid.

Exit

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Have you seen that documentary that the Irish film crew made? Best piece of Irish television I've ever seen.

I haven't unfortunately.

Zebra3

America protects the interests of America's rich.

Read up on what happens in places like Saudi and Kuwait. Best buds with America.

And on filth like Pinochet and Saddam. Both US puppets.

Oh, and don't forget about fascist Spain. After playing a minor role in defeating Nazi Germany in 1944-45, America paid over huge sums of money to prop up the regime in Spain who had got Hitler's air force in to bomb Guernica in the late 30s.

The Spanish state still refuses to acknowledge this massacre of 17,000+ (?) civilans. Germany apologised in 1998.

Terry

where to begin?

Operation Iraqi Liberation?
The large island off the coast of florida whose people remain part of a comunist dictatorship (Cuba)?
The invasion of one country (Afghanistan) because they were supposedly behind 9/11?
The mysterious WMD's in Iraq?
The supposed removal of these WMD's to Syria, yet Syria has not been invaded?
The fact that bin laden has been spotted in Pakistan, yet Pakistan has not been invaded (who has nukes?)?
Iran and their nuclear programme and the fact that their supposed nuclear weapons development in very much a threat to Israel and a greater threat to world stability than Iraq ever was, yet they still remain uninvaded?

Don't get me started on the brits and their involvement. did they learn nothing about terrorism after 90 or so years of IRA bombings in britain?

The Spanish did the right thing by overthrowing their government after the Madrid bombings. If only the same thing happened closer to home. (the overthrow of the government, not the terror attacks).

Wertz

If by democracy you mean capitalism then yes

Sand

I have a debate coming up in school, and would like your opinions about either side (they are/they aren't). Thanks.

They deposed Saddam, a dictator.
They babysat the constitutional process in Iraq
The helped organise and secure elections in hugely difficult circrumstances with turnouts that established democracies can only dream of.
Theyre currently doing their best to encourage/cajole the Iraqi government into acting to stop sectarian murders
Theyre attempting to train Iraqi police, military and civil agencies long after the United Nations left.

If theyre not in it to try and establish a functional democracy, then what exactly are they handing around for? If they were in it for the oil, they could simply have made friends with Saddam again. Its what the cynical would expect.

Despite that, youre screwed if youre on the team thats trying to argue the US is defending democracy in Iraq. The deluge of pop culture politics is not really based on reality, more on what they heard on MTV. Christ, half the comments here are about Venezeula, Spain in the 1930s, Pinochet, the IRA etc etc and were only 10 posts in.

Terry

Sand wrote:

They deposed Saddam, a dictator.
They babysat the constitutional process in Iraq
The helped organise and secure elections in hugely difficult circrumstances with turnouts that established democracies can only dream of.
Theyre currently doing their best to encourage/cajole the Iraqi government into acting to stop sectarian murders
Theyre attempting to train Iraqi police, military and civil agencies long after the United Nations left.

If theyre not in it to try and establish a functional democracy, then what exactly are they handing around for? If they were in it for the oil, they could simply have made friends with Saddam again. Its what the cynical would expect.

Despite that, youre screwed if youre on the team thats trying to argue the US is defending democracy in Iraq. The deluge of pop culture politics is not really based on reality, more on what they heard on MTV. Christ, half the comments here are about Venezeula, Spain in the 1930s, Pinochet, the IRA etc etc and were only 10 posts in.

well said.

i would like to point out now that this is here to give your opinions to the OP.
debating other posts is discouraged as that is not what the OP asked for.
should you wish to discuss the merits/ failings of the US and their war in iraq with others, then feel free to start another thread.
thanks.

Black Swan

George W. Bush was elected by special interests that put millions of dollars into PACs (Political Action Committees) to elect the US president in 2000 and re-elect him in 2004. Oil corporations, the "military industrial complex," and corporations that would benefit from rebuilding Iraq (like Halliburton) funded these PACs, because they stood to profit and did. For example, US oil corporations have declared their highest profits since the second US-Iraq war. They traded Iraqi and American "blood for oil."

To say that "the Americans" are behind this war is the same as to say that "the Irish" are behind the current Iraq war too, because "the Irish" allow and profit from the use of Shannon airport as a major staging point in the USA's war in Iraq? If "the Irish" were against the Iraq war, then why is Shannon still being used by the US military?

I'm temporarily overseas and have lived in California for little more than a year. It is the most populous state in the USA. In both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections the majority of Californians voted against Bush. You would not be very popular if you were here walking about and saying that "the Americans" were in favour of the Bush administration's Iraq war. And hopefully, as the Bush administration is increasingly challenged by the new Democratic party majority in Congress (which took office 3 January 2007), that this tragic waste of Iraqi and American lives will eventually end.

tolosenc

julep wrote:

i would like to point out now that this is here to give your opinions to the OP.
debating other posts is discouraged as that is not what the OP asked for.
should you wish to discuss the merits/ failings of the US and their war in iraq with others, then feel free to start another thread.
thanks.

Thanks, julep.

One route that has been suggested to me and not explored here is the oligarchical nature of the political scene in the USA. Sure they're off about the world "spreading democracy", but are they even democratic themselves, ie Electoral college, big businesses, $$$ needed to become president etc.

[EDIT: Sand, I'm arguing that they aren't, but just would like to hear both sides so I can think of rebuttals.]

spank_inferno

America isnt defending democracy because simply democracy isnt under attack. No western nation has lost "democracy" to islamic extremeism.

The number of democratic nations in the wold may even be on the rise?

Its a hard one to debate, the more pertinant question might be
"Is democracy under attack?" I'd say its not

Sangre

I think most people's problem with the US' foreign policies is that they're blatently covering up their true objectives. If they didn't constantly bandy about words like 'war on terror' and 'defending democracy' then people wouldn't try and remove them from the capitalist plastic (oil-based) throne.

Every country looks out for number #1. It just so happens America does it on a much bigger scale.

Flukey

After the 2000 election, if anywhere needs democracy brought to it, it is the USA itself. Britain's democratic system has problems too, it being a single seat constituency, first past the post system. In theory a party can get a minority of the votes, and all the seats. For example, if a party got 35% of the vote, it could be higher than any other individual party, so they'd win the seat. If you replicated that across the country, they have 100% of seats with 35% of the votes, leaving 65% unrepresented. Ireland's system isn't perfect, but Proportional Represenation gives a fairer representation of how people voted.

Coming back to the issue in hand, America's record elsewhere, as people have mentioned, has a history of installing dictators at the expense of democracticly elected leaders, or supporting extreme regimes. America has a lot of power and influence. People are not jealous of it, as GWB often likes to portray. It is not that they have power and influence, but how it is used and abused as the case may be. Democracy can't be enforced on a country. They could however give positive advice and support etc. that could help.

OfflerCrocGod

They didn't go in to Iraq to defend democracy they went in to spread democracy. Iraq was basically one of the few available choices in the Middle-East which the US could attempt this experiment on.

Black Swan

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

They didn't go in to Iraq to defend democracy they went in to spread democracy. Iraq was basically one of the few available choices in the Middle-East which the US could attempt this experiment on.

If I recall correctly, defending or spreading "democracy" was not the main issue presented by President George W. Bush when he first went to the US Congress looking for support to go to war in Iraq. The US Congress would not have agreed with it. Rather, he came to the US Congress using scare tactics, claiming that: (1) Saddam had and was developing weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the USA and its interests; and (2) Saddam was supporting Al Queda. After the US military defeated the Iraqi military forces, it was later discovered that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have any connections with Al Queda. It was only then that the spin masters of the Bush administration attempted to revise history and whipped up this spreading of democracy theme.

Of course, Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Queda before going to the US Congress. The Germans and the French knew this too, from the reports of the inspection teams, and the fact that Saddam and O.B. Laden had opposing religious beliefs and were in opposite political camps. Bush was so mad at the French for not supporting his Iraq war that he threw a fit and had French fries renamed Freedom Fries in Washington, D.C., at the time.

Bush went to Iraq because the special interests that paid for his election in 2000 and re-election in 2004 (through Political Action Committees) would profit from the war, not to defend or spread democracy in the Middle East.

Connect the dots:

1. Bush was a former oil man ...... Iraq is a major source of oil ..... US oil corporations contributed to the election and re-election of Bush ..... Bush uses US military to take control of Iraq oil ... US oil corporations realise record profits. Duh!

2. Chaney (Bush's Vice President) was the former CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Halliburton Corporation .... Halliburton contributes to the election and re-election of Bush-Chaney ... Bush-Chaney use the US military to destroy a lot of the Iraq national infrastructure when making their war .... Halliburton is given contracts worth billions of USD to rebuild Iraq (and is not required to compete in a bidding process with other corporations, but given an exclusive by the Bush-Chaney administration) ..... Halliburton has record profits. Duh!

Now, where in the world are the defense or spreading of democracy found in record oil profits or Halliburton profits?

Seth Brundle

Didn't they go into Iraq to remove a dictator who had WMDs and threatened global stability?

A democracy can be measured on its justice system. America itself has a flawed justice system where those with criminal records cannot vote (despite supposedly having paid their debt to society).
However, by influencing Saddam's trial and subsequently handing him over they were not defending democracy - they were protecting their interests (sure even the case he was tried for was stupid given what he is alleged to have done). Saddam should have been tried in the Hague and nowhere else.

walrusgumble

kbannon wrote:

Didn't they go into Iraq to remove a dictator who had WMDs and threatened global stability?

A democracy can be measured on its justice system. America itself has a flawed justice system where those with criminal records cannot vote (despite supposedly having paid their debt to society).
However, by influencing Saddam's trial and subsequently handing him over they were not defending democracy - they were protecting their interests (sure even the case he was tried for was stupid given what he is alleged to have done). Saddam should have been tried in the Hague and nowhere else.

don't forget some of america's states still have the death penalty. i agree with the hauge. but would americans still have influence their too? i thought the iraqis were very keen and concerned that sadam was to be tried and punished in iraqi soil under iraqi law. still international law ie the hague should have controlled it

InFront

America are not defending democracy, they are defending their self interest.

The word democracy really doesn't mean a whole lot. To say that America is invading the Middle East for oil expolits means even less, and shouldn't really be taken anywhere out of the context of general US desire for ideological dominance.

The USA are starting, or contributing to wars in the Middle east for one reason: they want to assert their dominance over Middle Eastern Islam. That desire has been there since the Iranian revolution but really climaxed after September the 11th. That day changed the course of international politics dramatically, after the USA decided to take a top-down approach to social change in the Middle East.

They figure that if they can oust hostile Muslim leaderships that this will change their societies into a jeans-wearing, cinema-going, beer-guzzling extension of Ohio. As we have seen most particularly from Afghanistan and Iraq, this is not to be the case.
Instead of trying to force change through offensive attacks, they need to inspire change. That is to say, solve the problem from the bottom up.

The crux of that point is that to inspire change one does not need to change Islam. You just need to generate positive attitudes toward the West and extremism will fall away. Massacring thousands of innocent civilians is a dumbass way of trying to generate support, and is playing directly into the hands of extremism.

So no I don't think America are defending democracy in the middle east. I think they're providing recruitment for Al Qaeda, and that this policy is one they will regret sooner rather than later.

Red Hand

I'm sure that there is an argument for spreading democracy, or combatting Islamic extremism, or whatever, but again to echo others in this thread, the realpolitiek usually comes down to gaining something.

There is alot to gain from destabilising the oil-rich nations of the middle-east. Is anyone going to spread democracy in Zimbaebwe, for instance?:)

Steffano2002

Wertz wrote:

If by democracy you mean capitalism then yes

There's your answer. Short and sweeet!

sdanseo

Steffano2002 wrote:

There's your answer. Short and sweeet!

Agreed.

Seth Brundle

walrusgumble wrote:

i thought the iraqis were very keen and concerned that sadam was to be tried and punished in iraqi soil under iraqi law. still international law ie the hague should have controlled it

Some of them were but American influence decided the charges etc. Why was he tried over the killing of 148 people when there were bigger trials he could have been gotten for? Because America helped them?

worth a read...

Terry

The offical blurb is that they arte defending the freedom of America.
I'd just like to know who they are defending it from.
A few lunatics hi-jacking planes are not really a threat to the freedom of anyone. It's more a case of the media playing on people's fears that is stifling freedom.

purple'n'gold

julep wrote:

The offical blurb is that they arte defending the freedom of America.
I'd just like to know who they are defending it from.
A few lunatics hi-jacking planes are not really a threat to the freedom of anyone. It's more a case of the media playing on people's fears that is stifling freedom.

I agree, all you have to do is turn on Fox news and you will experience American “news” at its worst. Its stomach churning, almost as bad as when G. Bush starts with “my fellow Americans”.

Terry

I have seen that "fair and Balanced" news.
It's good for a laugh, but only for about 5 minutes. Then you remember all the people who are buying into it.

Rb

kbannon wrote:

Didn't they go into Iraq to remove a dictator who had WMDs and threatened global stability?

Lol.

purple'n'gold

rb_ie wrote:

Lol.

They didn’t have to go to Iraq; he’s at home in Texas / Washington.

tolosenc

So, is the general consensus that they are spreading rather than defending freedom? Can anyone think of any arguments for the motion that are hard to argue.

Terry

well the lack of WMD's is a fairly strong arguement.
There's also the fact that they killed more people than saddam hussein did during his reign, (i don't have figures, but google can help you there) thus negating the arguement that they went there for the good of the Iraqi people.

BlitzKrieg

he's looking for points for the motion...



what Sand said at the start of the thread will be your best points.

Zonko

I'll be semi-provokative here and say that I don't think trying to overthrow governments (such as Cuba or Iraq) almost out of the blue is in anyway a means of promoting democracy. I think trying to shove democracy down someones throat is un-democratic in some ways (although this is a tricky one to argue :P). How many people really believe though, that their attacks have really been solely (or even partially) for the purpose of democracy?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Zonko wrote:

I'll be semi-provokative here and say that I don't think trying to overthrow governments (such as Cuba or Iraq) almost out of the blue is in anyway a means of promoting democracy. I think trying to shove democracy down someones throat is un-democratic in some ways (although this is a tricky one to argue :P). How many people really believe though, that their attacks have really been solely (or even partially) for the purpose of democracy?

Absolutely not, the attacks have been to keep the population of the US living in fear so that they will more readily accept some extremely questionable social and fiscal policy. A scared population is generally quite malleable.

digitally-yours

Americans defending democracy

surely no one with least bit of common sense agree with it
If you want to know more see the size of the New US embassy
Its bigger then the whole of dublin and see the facilities and see whos making it


Americans Have blood on their hands especially ... Bush !


Read about embassy here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Embassy_in_Iraq

Dr_Teeth

The Americans are defending *their* democracy. If they can do that by installing dictators or starting wars or holding countries to ransom via usurous loans they will do so at the drop of a hat.

kevmy

If your looking for stuff about America's own political system your onto gold OP. The Iraq war is a very emotive subject and one most people have made up their minds on already to really win a debate you have to talk logically about something which most people haven't heard a million times before.

While democracy is enshrined in the American constitution it is only there in a bastardised version. The electoral college system was specifically put in place by the founders of America to ensure the people didn't make the wrong choice. For example if the people of Missiouri voted for Candidate A their electoral college representitave could legally vote for Candidate B. Now this hasn't happened since before the Civil War but it is still essentially undemocratic.
The electoral college system is not split into population representive numbers ie. the states don't have the same percentage of votes as their populations may demand. Again this makes the system fundamentally undemocratic and negates one man one vote.
The Senate is also split undemocratically giving each state 2 Senators regardless of population. This was done to appease the people who didn't trust the federal government and wanted more of an EU style setup in the USA than the nation-state setup.
Also could argure that not everyone can run for office as huge money is needed to enter the race. Huge corporations pay massive sums to politicans campaigns (perhaps they then own them?). If you don't get 5% of the national vote in the presidential campaign then your party don't get their grant from the federal government.
Also the duocracy of the two party system. The have a stranglehold on American politics from the Presidency right down to the school boards and small mayoral elections. They have two parties making up 99.99% of all elected representatives. In most other democratic countries, one could argue the truly democratic countries, there is at least 3 large-ish parties. This makes it extremely difficult to stand for office in America if your views don't square with those of the 2 parties. The money is not there for you to stand if you don't agree with them. This pushes people into either one party or the other when a seperate party might better serve their views. This results in huge gaps between the wings in the parties ie. the Christian consevatives and the Regan Republicans or the McCain Republicans, the Obama/Pelosi wing and the raft of new social conservative Democrats. This porduces infighting in the parties making them not concentrate on the good of the country.


I could go on but I should probably stop and do some work.

faceman

kevmy wrote:

If your looking for stuff about America's own political system your onto gold OP.

you beat me to it!

OP to reinforce kevmy's comments. you need to understand politics in internal america before preparing your debate notes. Foreign policy isnt the be all and end all of democracy.

I suspect however your debate will be more a debate on the iraq war as opposed to america and democracy which is a shame. However if iraq and saddam becomes the talking point then i suggest you have a chat with your history teacher. Ask your teacher about what the allies did after the end of WWII. (Sorry the treaty name escapes me) but basically in summary layman's lauguage the allies agreed that they would never let another country rise to the power that hitler did again. (if you remember, by the time the allies went to war against germany, they were too powerful. Diplomacy had failed miserably many times over) We look to the lessons of the past to prepare for the future.

tolosenc

Thanks faceman, but I reckon by mentioning foreign policy and discussing it but still putting emphasis on politics in the States itself I can steer the debate my direction and catch others unable to rebut.

I think a poll is in order.

Ruu_Old

Send me a PM with the question and options, obl, and I'll add a poll for you, probably won't let you at this stage but my super sekrit powers will allow it.

faceman

Ruu wrote:

Send me a PM with the question and options, obl, and I'll add a poll for you, probably won't let you at this stage but my super sekrit powers will allow it.

"....just where does he get those wonderful toys?"

Ruu_Old

Poll added by request.

exCrumlinBoyo

America has no right to be spreading “democracy” around the world. Iraq at the time (9-11) was a sitting duck and an opportunity for dump-siht Bush to invade and overthrow Sadam who was doing nothing but mind his own business. I am sure he was having a giggle to himself when 9-11 happened.

At the time, Bush labeled Iran/Iraq/N. Korea as an axis of Evil. Iran and North Korea at the time were and to this day and purposely telling bush they have nuclear weapons all the while the country he invaded had none. Not a dickey bird.

In my opinion Korea for example played a card that said to Bush, if you even think of coming near our country we will use our weapons against you, this has made him think twice. The best form of attack and defending their country me thinks.

The country in which Bush (I say bush and not America is because Bush gives America a bad name) should have invaded to get proper answers is in Fact Saudi Arabia. I am not sure of exact figures but I think 14 or 15 of the Hijackers were in fact Saudi’s. Now I tell you if 15 of the 19 hijackers were Irish/Norwegian for example, bush would have bombed the feck out of us, it’s that simple. Saudi Arabia is America’s brother who feeds the US economy. The Saudi’s have so much money invested the US economy that if they were to remove it tomorrow the economy would crash tomorrow and the siht would hit the fan big time. I should also mention that Bush and his family are personal friends of the Saudi’s and when 9/11 happened, and all the airports were closed, Bush personally gathered all the Saudi Royal Family including Bin Laden’s cousins ect and flew them directly out of the US.

Simply put, Bush is a Moran and I don’t know how he has the balls to present him self to the US and the world as he dose. No other country has the right to push their beliefs and ideals onto any other country. That’s like you telling your neighbour what to wear, say and do… I would not stand for it nor would you!?

Everyone knows Sadam was a evil bollix, but the US fabricated a reason to invade in order to preserve the image of “if you mess with us, we mess with you” attitude. Unfortunatly, Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11 nor had any WMD. It’s a farce and the American Public after nearly 4 years are finally seeing how wrong the “Phony War’ war is.

Bush and Americans go on and on about how “free” the US is and how democracy. **** they even have songs about it as if they were special because the can go and vote and how they are the freest country on earth. Little do they know that the Government censers a lot of TV, Radio, Mail/Post. The government here in the US dictate a whole lot more than the like to let on but yet still claim to be “free”

The US should get the feck out of Iraq and take care of affairs at home first. Bush recently asked congress for 18 billion recently to fund the war, which my taxes are funding. Ask the homeless Vietnam vet who stands on the corner every day here in Florida were his medical card is or how his retirement pay was taken way from him and that why due to lack of medical services at the time, how he lost his leg?

Ask the single mother who is trying to work, pay her way through college, pay for her daughters medicine which the government wont pay for, how free she believes she is. She will probably tell you, God is Good… which may be true, but the sooner the leader of this Country, bush is gone, the world will be a better place. In actually fact, he is just pissing off the terrorist to be honest and another 9/11 tragedy (I hope not) is not far away.

Bush will go down in History as a stupid P*rick, to say the least.

tolosenc

Cheers Ruu!

Seth Brundle

exCrumlinBoyo wrote:

At the time, Bush labeled Iran/Iraq/N. Korea as an axis of Evil. Iran and North Korea at the time were and to this day and purposely telling bush they have nuclear weapons all the while the country he invaded had none. Not a dickey bird.

Iran doesn't have nukes - thats what all the crap at the moment is about.

Terry

leave Kim Jong Il out of this. He's just ronery.

nesf

Be wary of falling into the trap of believing too much of the anti-Bush vitrol. There are grains of truth in many places but most of it is as Sand put it pop-culture politics. If you want opposition stuff look for some quotes/points from Chomsky's political stuff. He's generally good for setting out some degree of evidence for most of the views he puts forward. For the pro stuff I don't know of anyone off-hand who'd be relatively reliable as an author/source.

ScumLord

I read a book by a guy caled gore vidal (I think) according to him America's economy is always uplifted by a war and they actively seak them out. It makes sense nearly all the military companys are American and their always picking on some far away nation.

I think there's a tiny super rich minority that use democracy - war - and oil as smoke screens and money makers and have absolutely no interest in the best interests of American people which obviously isn't yet another war.

As much as I like the American people it sickens me that they let their government get away with all this.

Any country that spends the amount of money it is on killing people half way around the world rather than spend it helping their own sick and poor is shamefully corrupted.

America have corrupted democracy in their own country and ensured it won't spread in the middle east. It's just a buzz word to them. (The American government, not the people)