Why Is America So Bad at Promoting Democracy in Other Countries?

[Peter1469]

I've explained what is wrong with the author's opinion piece. I agree we could be better example setters worldwide. I believe the Realist and their policies responsible for what happened on 9-11 and the Jihad against America, I've laid out the facts, what actually happened. The piece admits there is no magic formula, it's the standard everyday guess from a realist intellectual.

OK.

And a lot of actions after 9-11 were counter productive to our vital interests. That is the point.

[Ransom]

OK.

And a lot of actions after 9-11 were counter productive to our vital interests. That is the point.

Counter productive but necessary in my opinion although I did register the point made, Peter. And would like to add another that I feel the author omitted. For....a lot of actions prior to 9-11 were also counter productive to our vital interests. The piece does make the point there is no magic formula....but then states what we know doesn't work....and fails to include the very realist policies the piece is trying to promote.

The biggest failure in Iraq was trying to use Saddam Hussein as a buffer against Iran, destabilize the nation so that it cannot reconstitute and wreak havoc on the economy and social services. It was an absolute disaster and spawned al-Qaeda's declaration of war against us. It was the realist policies used on Iraq that was Osama Bin Laden's main bones of contention. Was it not?

[Peter1469]

I know what your opinion is- you state it clearly and often. I disagree.

I refer you back to Walt's article on What if Realists were in Charge. (Or something like that- you know the article.)

Osama is a side issue when we are talking matters of State. We could easily have dealt with Osama and his team inside the US had we separated war fighting from law enforcement. He was a tactical problem, not a strategic problem.

On a strategic level, our interests were to play Middle Eastern powers off one another so they were effectively checked. We had no need to actually control the region and bring them democracy. They will come to that over time.

Eliminating Saddam without a strongman to replace him was the greatest geopolitical blunder since Vietnam. al Qaeda was always in the background- they emerged when Saddam was gone with no ruthless replacement.

Counter productive but necessary in my opinion although I did register the point made, Peter. And would like to add another that I feel the author omitted. For....a lot of actions prior to 9-11 were also counter productive to our vital interests. The piece does make the point there is no magic formula....but then states what we know doesn't work....and fails to include the very realist policies the piece is trying to promote.

The biggest failure in Iraq was trying to use Saddam Hussein as a buffer against Iran, destabilize the nation so that it cannot reconstitute and wreak havoc on the economy and social services. It was an absolute disaster and spawned al-Qaeda's declaration of war against us. It was the realist policies used on Iraq that was Osama Bin Laden's main bones of contention. Was it not?

[Ransom]

I know what your opinion is- you state it clearly and often. I disagree.

You disagree with the facts often, Peter, it's called denial.

I refer you back to Walt's article on What if Realists were in Charge. (Or something like that- you know the article.)

You mean the job resume, as I remember he was making the case schools hire more realists and infect our youth with stupidity, mistake, and known error.

Osama is a side issue when we are talking matters of State. We could easily have dealt with Osama and his team inside the US had we separated war fighting from law enforcement. He was a tactical problem, not a strategic problem.

The matter we're discussing Peter include the state of Afghanistan. It's government. It's being threatened by the Taliban who would then no doubt allow an al-Qaeda or ISIS a safe haven and base of operations to threaten the world. You're way behind still.

On a strategic level, our interests were to play Middle Eastern powers off one another so they were effectively checked. We had no need to actually control the region and bring them democracy. They will come to that over time.

How did the playing off against one another work and why don't you nor this piece address that. Because...that didn't end well. Did it?

Eliminating Saddam without a strongman to replace him was the greatest geopolitical blunder since Vietnam. al Qaeda was always in the background- they emerged when Saddam was gone with no ruthless replacement.

The greater blunder was allowing him to remain in power and trying to think you can keep it all contained playing powers off against one another. Reckless, arrogant, and stupid. And we paid dearly for that stupidity and why the Petes and Ethereals won't be permitted decision making ever again.

Swabs.

[donttread]

Weak nations agree. There has always been this tension between great powers and lesser powers.

You mean between bulllies and the bullied?

[donttread]

I'm not suggesting that personal liberties aren't to be valued but only that they should not come at the expense of the political community (i.e. the democracy). In our culture, society is never to intrude on our precious autonomy. To wit, this society simply cannot be governed in the proper sense of the word and that's because we won't let it be. Any time we try to take our destiny in our own hands our will is either quietly disposed of by our representatives or struck down by the courts. The US government is nothing more than an arena where private interests are managed and private interests (usually monied interests) rule this country.

Time and again we see democracy disparaged on this forum and the same folks wonder why nothing changes, why they have no voice and why the country has gone to $#@!.

Certainly food for thought. As is the fact that your thoughts here are a display of ... individualism . Deep stuff "D" . I'll ponder it before fully responding.

[donttread]

Yes. Donttread would have used blockade to cut off Japanese supplies much of it necessary to sustain life, he would have starved millions to a slow death. Then the inevitable invasion.....where tens of thousands of Us military would have been killed, the house to house fighting that would have occurred.....not to mention, many Japanese civilians would have committed suicide rather than surrender given an invasion of their homeland.

And megacorps.....are central to your living room too, donttread. And driveway. And desktop. And palm. And home. From clothing to what you eat, what you drive, or type with.

Apple? Microsoft? Verizon? AT&T? GMC? Honda? You strike me as a rice burner driver, would I be correct? Yaris?

Remember the other day when I said I would not repeatedly answer the same question from you? Well I also will not repeatedly speak to the same assaults on my beliefs. We have discussed everything in this post several times before and I will not be drawn in. Believe what you will, but don't expect me to speak to your questions or assertions unless they are original or at least new from you. Which of course lets out most of what you have ever said on this board.

[Ransom]

Remember the other day when I said I would not repeatedly answer the same question from you?

No. You don't answer questions....you ask a lot of em......but you don't give answers nor content nor source work for your assertions.

Well I also will not repeatedly speak to the same assaults on my beliefs.

Asking you about the mega megacorp products in your own home is 'assault on your beliefs?'

Safe zone and a tissue perhaps? Your arguments are under assault, donttread. Make no mistake.

We have discussed everything in this post several times before and I will not be drawn in. Believe what you will, but don't expect me to speak to your questions or assertions unless they are original or at least new from you. Which of course lets out most of what you have ever said on this board.

Of course you'll not be drawn in. Many many ballistic on about big bank, big business, big corps, big this, big that. When the largest corporations in the world are what? Let's see. Amazon. Got an Amazon account, donttread? That an assault if I ask that? Got a Facebook account, donttread? Use Microsoft? Apple? Mac? HP? Use Verizon, AT&T? Use Windows? Use a credit card? Debit card? Who makes your refrigerator? Your oven? Who makes your AC? Who made your home? What kind of car is in the driveway? Who is your health care provider?

And I'm asserting.....donttread....whether you think it's an assault on your 'beliefs' or not.....that the answer to ALL my questions above is. A Megacorp. Provides all of those products and services to you....and you spend much time dissing these same entities. Assault? I think not. Shining of light on a nonsensical argument....definitely.

[MisterVeritis]

We no longer defend individual rights in our own country. Maybe we should start here.

[Peter1469]

You disagree with the facts often, Peter, it's called denial.


You mean the job resume, as I remember he was making the case schools hire more realists and infect our youth with stupidity, mistake, and known error.



The matter we're discussing Peter include the state of Afghanistan. It's government. It's being threatened by the Taliban who would then no doubt allow an al-Qaeda or ISIS a safe haven and base of operations to threaten the world. You're way behind still.



How did the playing off against one another work and why don't you nor this piece address that. Because...that didn't end well. Did it?


The greater blunder was allowing him to remain in power and trying to think you can keep it all contained playing powers off against one another. Reckless, arrogant, and stupid. And we paid dearly for that stupidity and why the Petes and Ethereals won't be permitted decision making ever again.

Swabs.

Yes. You are not well informed about foreign policy and statecraft.

We all know your position.