> > America actually IS attempting, via the IMF,
> > World Bank and other such powerful groups,
> > including many lobby groups, to _impose_
> > its most important cultural values on peoples
> > who don't necessarily want anything to do with
> > them.
>
> I'd say "bribe" rather than "impose".
The penalties for disobedience are pretty harsh, aren't they ? even to the extent of open war ?!
> > For example, many right wing idealists justify
> > the Iraq war by saying that it is all about
> > democracy,
>
> That'd be me.
OK, forget about the "right wing idealists" ; I meant to talk about knee-jerk Cheney-sucking wank-for-brains neo-con propaganda enthusiasts.
> > but democracy isn't something that can be
> > imposed from without, without ceasing to
> > be actual "democracy".
>
> True-ish.
Drop the "-ish" please. Political power is, in ALL cases derived from the consent, explicit or tacit, of "the people". When the majority reaches a state of opinion where the governance is totally rejected, the latter will almost inevitably be overthrown, as has recently happened in Georgia.
Put simply, "the people" will not do what it believes it should not do, nor obey those it does not believe wield legitimate authority. Politics is the art of encouraging a certain pattern of power yielding and power wielding.
Many Western nations use the expedient of glorified opinion polls and multiple-choice questionnaires, trivially mutated into comparisons of televised personality sketches, to discover whether "the people" continue to give their consent to the elected leaders, or not.
The drawbacks of such a system are painfully obvious.
> However, try distinguishing these two cases
> in practice:
> (a) The "people" really don't want democracy -- they
> want theocracy, naziism, communism, or whatever ism.
> (b) The "people" really would prefer to choose their
> own government on a regular basis, but are afraid to
> say so because of thugs who will take over at the
> earliest opportunity -- one man, one vote, one time.
My problem here is that you present a fairly simplistic picture where political systems can be put into two black & white groups : democracy / "-isms"
Democracy isn't necessarily the best system for one and all.
> > And, if truly democratic elections were held in
> > Iraq in 2004, the resulting chamber(s) and
> > governing body that ensued would most likely
> > be deeply anti-American ones ;
>
> That would be an acceptabe result to me.
Given your expressed views, I cannot believe that. See below :
> So would
> have an Islamic government in Algeria. Let the
> ideologues run the government for a while; it will run
> its course, as it has in Iran.
Hmmm ...
How about :
"That would be an acceptabe result to me. So would have a Nazi government in Germany. Let the ideologues run the government for a while; it will run its course, as it has in Turkey."
> > also, as soon as the Americans are out of the
> > place there is a 85% likelihood that
> > there will be a civil war / coup d'état /
> > revolution.
>
> Agreed. One man, one vote, one time. This is the
> case for a supervised, representative government for
> some period of time.
How will the hostile elected representatives be "supervised", exactly ? Assuming the most interesting possible case, ie that they are the majority ?
Someone will be there to give them
orders from on high, perchance ?
> > What's the difference between the resistance
> > movement in Iraq in 2003 and the resistance
> > movement in France during the German occupation ?
>
> The difference between fighting for a dictator and
> fighting against one.
I asked because I'm genuinely interested in your opinions, BTW ...
Actually, I think that the main motivation behind the Resistance is that they're fighting for their country, against an alien occupying power, not for a dictator.
Besides, last time I looked, Saddam Hussein could hardly be described as a "dictator".
You need to be in lone control of your country to be one of those, don't you ?
"Leader of the Opposition" maybe ?
Oh, right, sorry : I forgot ; no such beast in the American democratic scheme ... ;-)
> In other news, the Supreme Court today upheld the
> suspension of the First Amendment as to core political
> speech for unpopular persons, thus signalling the end
> of 200+ years of democracy in America. It is a sad
> day. Read Scalia's opinion.
URL ?
> You left off the obligatory insult, pinko.
Nope, there's an insult in every e-mail :
> You Are All Idiots. Signed, De Immod.
jeers,
Julian
--
__________________________________
"Hmmm, I've heard of other powers.
Can you tell me about ...
... Real Life ?"
Powered by hypermail