Is it really necessary for the US to adopt the position that everyone else in the world must have the same freedoms we do and then to force our way of democratic government upon them by military action; in the process spending billions upon billions of dollars that could be much better spent at home?
2006-12-05 08:01:29 · 10 answers · asked by Kokopelli 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Why should it be incumbent on the US to fight for freedom of other peoples who are not willing to fight for it on their own?
2006-12-05 08:21:22 · update #1
Good question. I would like to add that a democratic government is extremely hard to maintain. Particularly when the country or culture that we think should have it, has no history of anything like it. Simply look at the Arab countries and the African countries. Many have a "democracy" but the countries are in shambles.
Sad to say, but in many cases a benevolent dictator is the best option. Eventually, and it may take many,many years, a democratic system will evolve.
But it has to evolve from within. Just as ours has done and most of the counties in Europe. Note that all countries that call them selves democratic are really republics. And each one has different controls to maintain the government. As it should be. Different cultures and history require that.
For us to insist that a country become "democratic" is futile.
We are a unique country. As are they. Let them sort it out.
2006-12-08 00:30:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your question is good one. Neoconservative theory held that everyone yearned for democratic government, and that using the military to "liberate" people was a valid exercise of force.
Does this theory work? Just think of how poor a job the north did in trying to enforce its ideas of freedom for blacks on the south during and after the civil war. This was within the same country, and each side understood the psychology and culture of the other side fairly well. The US government didn't have a CLUE about Arab culture or history or language. Bush, for example didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunnis before he approved the war against Iraq. He ignored the warnings of advisers who predicted a disaster within Iraq if Saddam was removed, including his Secretary of State, a 4 star general and military strategist as well as a respected diplomat.
2006-12-05 16:06:39 · answer #2 · answered by Skip F 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Comes down to this. Radical, violent forces are at work, forces who want total destruction of western society. So I ask you this as a way of answering. If you know that the family 4 blocks over is getting ready to make an attack on the people next door, do you sit idly by, keeping to yourself and hope they don't bother with you next? Or do you prepare by making your neighbors aware of their activities, arming yourself and checking the security of your home...JUST IN CASE? A classic fight between good and evil is on the horizon sir. If you choose to brush it aside and disbelieve it and call those who do worry and plan for this crazy, that's your right.
I feel we do have a responsibility to our future generations to safeguard their freedoms, so yes, I want to see all people of the world living in free societies and having our opportunities. The cost of the moment will likely be heavily outweighed by the rightness of the goals we have set for ourselves. Thanks.
2006-12-05 16:11:12 · answer #3 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I DONT THINK THE U.S. FORCES FREEDOM ON ANYBODY. I GET A CHUCKLE EVERY TIME I SEE THIS TYPE OF QUESTION. 30 YEARS AGO, IF THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED, PEOPLE WOULD BE SHOCKED. NOW TODAY WE ARE ASKING IF PEOPLE "REALLY " WANT FREEDOM. YOU MAY HAVE A POINT THERE. MAYBE WE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IF WE LIVED IN A SOCIETY WHERE WOMEN WERE NO MORE THEN CATTLE DOING THE BIDDING OF THEIR MASTERS. PLUS MEN COULD HAVE AS MANY AS THEY WANTED WITH WOMEN HAVING NO SAY-SO IN THE MATTER. WOMEN PUBLICLY BEATEN FOR TRANGRESSIONS AS SHOCKING AS LEAVING AN ANKLE UNCOVERED. OR SHOT IN THE HEAD FOR ALLEGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT. WHY DON'T WE ASK THE WOMEN OF AFGANISTAN WHICH ONE THEY PREFER. THE TALIBAN HAVE POINTED THE WAY TO PARADISE. AND THIS SUPPOSEDLY IS IT. WHO WILL FOLLOW???
2006-12-05 16:29:54 · answer #4 · answered by Rich S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm. If we were going to "force" our way of life on other countries, we'd be after almost every country. Including our Allies. They have a Queen. Not a democracy.
So I think your question and reasoning is a bunch of BS.
***********************************************************
in the case of the Iraqi's - they didn't have the tools to fight for it on their own. The insurgents and the gov't had all the power, and all of the weapons. They were too SCARED to fight for it on their own. Saddam was already killing many of them already without them trying to take over the gov't.
Matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he would rather bomb his own country rather than take a chance that they might suceed - even though it would be a huge longshot of the civilians to win.
2006-12-05 16:07:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Be careful how you generalize: we did the same thing to Germany and Japan (to devestating effect) in WW2, besides, that is not what the current conflict is about, anyway.
2006-12-05 16:18:42 · answer #6 · answered by cyberknight 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom is the desire of all. These countries are bound in chains - and yet you wish to do nothing.
2006-12-05 16:09:36 · answer #7 · answered by The Man 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2006-12-05 16:04:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
haven't you bleeding heart dems asked this question enough?
what about situations like the darfur region, we didnt step in enough, give enough do enough and america (mainly bush) got much crap for it.. it either one way or the other.. either we help or we dont.. pls repost on a dem site somewhere..
2006-12-05 16:09:19 · answer #9 · answered by pain_made_me_beautiful 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You must be tired. No and we don't.
2006-12-05 16:05:23 · answer #10 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋