Democracy Promotion

[alaskaguy]

Should it be a central mission of our foreign policy to promote democracy throughout the world?

[herbiedoobie]

No. Our central mission should be to pursue US interests. Of course, world stability is usually directly in line with US interests.

See Hamas and Palestine if you have any questions why promoting democracy doesn't guarantee crap, vis-a-vis democracy and stability.

[TykeClone]

See Hamas and Palestine if you have any questions why promoting democracy doesn't guarantee crap, vis-a-vis democracy and stability.

When terrorist groups become the government, other nations have more direct avenues to deal with them if they decide to continue in their normal mode of operations.

[alaskaguy]

No. Our central mission should be to pursue US interests. Of course, world stability is usually directly in line with US interests.

See Hamas and Palestine if you have any questions why promoting democracy doesn't guarantee crap, vis-a-vis democracy and stability.

Perhaps the political landscape should be considered in determining whether to promote democracy?

In some countries there just doesn't appear to be any realistic democratic alternatives to the current government. For example, in Saudi Arabia is there any realistic democratic alternative to the current govenment? On the other hand, there appears to be democratic alternatives to Musharraf in Pakistan.

Promoting democracy should stengthen the U.S. image as a force for good, which in turn increases U.S. influence. Therefore, it should benefit the U.S. to promote democracy. The problems in Iraq, Afghhanistan, and much of the Middle East should not nix this position but make us realize that democracy promotion has limits.

[neo]

Promoting democracy should stengthen the U.S. image as a force for good, which in turn increases U.S. influence. Therefore, it should benefit the U.S. to promote democracy. The problems in Iraq, Afghhanistan, and much of the Middle East should not nix this position but make us realize that democracy promotion has limits.

IMO, we should encourage it through diplomacy, but never at the point of a gun. I don't think the end justifies the means. It doesn't seem to be working very well for us.

[brianhos]

IMO, we should encourage it through diplomacy, but never at the point of a gun. I don't think the end justifies the means. It doesn't seem to be working very well for us.

Yeah, so far diplomocy has worked a grand total of never. The only way to get your point across to someone who hates you is force.

[bawbie]

Yeah, so far diplomocy has worked a grand total of never. The only way to get your point across to someone who hates you is force.

How did that war with the USSR turn out?

[neo]

Yeah, so far diplomocy has worked a grand total of never. The only way to get your point across to someone who hates you is force.

Would they hate us if we weren't up in their business all the time? Granted, the Middle East is much different than the rest of the world, so diplomacy is less likely to work there, but damn. Do you think they hate us because of our freedom? They hate us because we're constantly meddling in their affairs.

[cmoneyr]

Yeah, so far diplomocy has worked a grand total of never. The only way to get your point across to someone who hates you is force.

But why should we promote Democracy to others? Why is it our job to push Democracy on people? Democracy is not an idea that will work everywhere, I liken it to Christian nuts trying to push Christianity on others. Sure, they think Christianity is the greatest religion, but not everyone feels that way. Just because we think Democracy is great for our nation, doesn't mean it's the best form of goverment for anyone else so why should we force people to be democratic?

[cmoneyr]

Would they hate us if we weren't up in their business all the time? Granted, the Middle East is much different than the rest of the world, so diplomacy is less likely to work there, but damn. Do you think they hate us because of our freedom? They hate us because we're constantly meddling in their affairs.

I agree, people don't hate us because they're jealous of our freedom. People hate us because we think everyone wants our freedom and we think it's our job to give it to them by any means necesarry.

[neo]

This is a foreign policy that sounds good to me.

"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

Ron Paul 2008 › Issues › War and Foreign Policy

[alaskaguy]

IMO, we should encourage it through diplomacy, but never at the point of a gun. I don't think the end justifies the means. It doesn't seem to be working very well for us.

I agree that nonmilitary tools need to be emphasized.

The US image abroad and as a model of democracy has certainly been tarnished as a result of our unilateralist Iraqi mission. Therefore, we should get our own house in order to be a more effective promoter of democracy.

[alaskaguy]

But why should we promote Democracy to others? Why is it our job to push Democracy on people? Democracy is not an idea that will work everywhere, I liken it to Christian nuts trying to push Christianity on others. Sure, they think Christianity is the greatest religion, but not everyone feels that way. Just because we think Democracy is great for our nation, doesn't mean it's the best form of goverment for anyone else so why should we force people to be democratic?

Because first and foremost, democracy provides the best institutional form for holding governments accountable. Although democracy is not perfect, it is generally the best form of government to prevent abusive rule and to drive effective governnance. Believing in the free market makes me believe in democracy, as democracy provides the setting for political competition between competing candidates and ideas.

[bawbie]

But why should we promote Democracy to others? Why is it our job to push Democracy on people? Democracy is not an idea that will work everywhere...

I disagree that democracy is not an idea that will work everywhere. Little 'd' democracy simply means government by the people. I think we should promote democracy, through diplomacy not force, because it is a basic human right to be able to have a say in your government. Much like I think our government should diplomatically fight freedom of speech violations, or the use of torture by other countries, I think we should push all countries to give their citizens a say.

[cmoneyr]

Because first and foremost, democracy provides the best institutional form for holding governments accountable. Although democracy is not perfect, it is generally the best form of government to prevent abusive rule and to drive effective governnance. Believing in the free market makes me believe in democracy, as democracy provides the setting for political competition between competing candidates and ideas.

I agree with everything you said there. But I still don't understand why we are the democracy police, ensuring that everyone in the world is getting treated the way we do? I believe in democracy, I whole heartedly agree that it is probably the best option available. But I'm confused why we were elected as the nation to spread it around the world?

I disagree that democracy is not an idea that will work everywhere. Little 'd' democracy simply means government by the people. I think we should promote democracy, through diplomacy not force, because it is a basic human right to be able to have a say in your government. Much like I think our government should diplomatically fight freedom of speech violations, or the use of torture by other countries, I think we should push all countries to give their citizens a say.

I agree democracy is a good idea, and I enjoy living in a democracy. But why does that make it OUR responsibility to spread that to the rest of the world? Fight freedom of speech violations in our country, don't go to another country to fight for their freedom of speech. I guess I don't get the "human right" angle. I see it as a wonderful perk and a great benefit of living in a democratic nation that I get a voice in my government. I agree it would be wonderful if people had a say in government everywhere, whether or not they have a "democracy". But my question is why are we the ones that should be fighting for democracy? If democracy is so great and such a "human right" then should they not realise this and fight for it themselves?