• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Bush's" War On Terror

Tony said:
That was an ad hom. And while we're talking about failures regarding islamic radicalism (IR), no administration has been as much of a failure at dealing with IR as this administration.
Click to expand...

Hey! You're fooling yourself, we haven't been attacked since 9/11! ;)
 
Tricky said:
I think that's a gross oversimplification. I don't think Japan fought a war of independence to get out from under the emperor. I don't think India had a successful war. They gained independence from England through purely political methods. Sure, you can say "yes, but there was the threat of war", but heck there is always a threat of war. How much of a threat varies widely.

I think you can point to a number of democracies which appeared without a serious threat of war.
Click to expand...

There could simply have not been an Indian democracy without Magna Carta and without the American Revolution. Parliamentary Democracy is not existential. It did not suddenly pop into existence out of the blue.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
There could simply have not been an Indian democracy without Magna Carta and without the American Revolution. Parliamentary Democracy is not existential. It did not suddenly pop into existence out of the blue.
Click to expand...
But that isn't what you said and what Tricky was illustrating.

rikzilla said:
In fact every major historical breakthrough leading to the creation of democracy and rule of law has been won through war or through threat of war.
Click to expand...
I think what Tricky was pointing out is not that war was involved in the ultimate creation of democracy, but that it is not true that every major historical breakthrough was won through war or threat of war.
 
Upchurch said:
But that isn't what you said and what Tricky was illustrating.


I think what Tricky was pointing out is not that war was involved in the ultimate creation of democracy, but that it is not true that every major historical breakthrough was won through war or threat of war.
Click to expand...

Give me some examples....I'm ready and willing to learn.

-z
 
Upchurch said:
What about Tricky's India example?
Click to expand...

It's a good example, but like I said, there'd have been no democratic model for India to adopt had it not itself evolved through war or threat of war. As you know, if it had not been for the abuses of power back in the dark ages and the backlash against such abuses we'd still be living in a lovely non-Globally-warmed land of Barons and serfs.

Now I'm not saying that all wars are worthwhile, clearly there have been many, many wars which did nothing more than fertilize battlefields with blood. But all those lovely rights we cherish today were bought with blood in wars down through the ages.

My original comment (which was in turn commented on by Tricky) was in response to a poster who claimed that war was; "Wasteful, counter-productive, dangerous for America." ...but war is always thus...yet it tends to also deliver the long term benefits we all take for granted these days. My point is that it is good to remember that our democracy was born in war and was based upon the (then) unrealized potential of English law to uphold individual rights and freedoms.

But first we had to free ourselves from the King. We sent him a nice letter signed by lots of upstanding citizens, but it seems that was not enough.

-z
 
Upchurch said:
What about Tricky's India example?


eta: I know very little about the world history of democracy. I have no dog in that fight. I was just pointing out the goal post shifting from "every major breakthrough" to "ultimate origins".
Click to expand...


Okay, I see that and perhaps I'm guilty of such. But ultimately one can't divorce a thing from its origins. Democracy was conceived in conflict and born in war. India did adopt democracy in peace...yet democracy itself would not exist but for war.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
India did adopt democracy in peace...yet democracy itself would not exist but for war.
Click to expand...
Well.... shouldn't that indicate that it is possible to obtain democracy through peaceful means? Can we all agree that using peaceful means to obtain something is preferable to using violent means to accomplish the same end?

I've lost track of what breakthrough for which democracy we may or may not have been referring to, but in regards to the WOT, I think any resulting democracy has been artificial and most likely temporary. Artificial in that it has come from the outside rather than from the people in question. Temporary because any of the people in question have not accepted democracy, to my eye, and will most likely abandon it once the external support for it has been removed. (And perhaps some have already abandoned it before the external support for it has been removed.)


As for the War on Terror and it's step-child, the Iraqi War, I agreed with Bush on precisely one decision: invading Afghanistan with the intent of capturing Bin Laden. Since then, every decision made seems to have put us in a worse and more crippling position placing us further from being able to both protect ourselves in the long term and progress forward as a strong and just nation.
 
rikzilla said:
Democracy was conceived in conflict and born in war. India did adopt democracy in peace...yet democracy itself would not exist but for war.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is true. Didn't democracy (and many other forms of government) originate in Greece? Yeah, the city states were often at war with each other, but I'm not sure it was just because they wanted to have their form of government be the boss. I have to plead ignorance of this. Perhaps some world history scholar can supply some details. But it is pretty certain that the idea of democracy did not originate with the Magna Carta.

But my point was that you cannot claim that just because somewhere in history a war was fought for democracy, that we have war to thank for democracy. Wars are fought for lots of reasons. Sometimes war is the only answer. Sometimes it is not.

There is no doubt that wars have changed the course of history, but maybe not as much as people think. Would the US be a country today if they had not fought the Revolutionary war? I strongly suspect they would, simply because they would have become to big to be governed from overseas. Could India have won its independance by going to war? Probably so. Thankfully, it was unneccessary.
 
You guys make very good points, but I must disagree. We may as well count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as opine on alternate, peaceful histories. Also one need not go so far back as ancient Greece, although it is interesting to research the history of democratic thought through the ages. Our modern democracy (the world's oldest) was brought about through the actions of King and Baron in Dark ages England. The Magna Carta brought forth the rule of law to which even the King was bound by. That was a first. Magna Carta brought about the "Great Council" which was the very beginning of Parliament. You can't claim that our democracy has nothing to do with Magna Carta. The MC was the very foundation of the idea of representative government! Until that time the King's whim held the force of law. Without the MC's influence the US Constitution could simply not have been written.

...and yes....the English Barons allied with Prince Llewellyn of Wales brought King John to Runnymeade through force of arms...threat of war...whatever you wish to call it. King John didn't just do it out of the goodness of his heart. He wasn't known for his generosity you know.

-z
 
NOTE: thanks guys, this has got to be one of the more interesting thread derails I've ever seen. Wikipedia says this on Magna Carta:
The influence of Magna Carta can be clearly seen in the U.S. Bill of Rights, which enumerates various rights of the people and restrictions on government power, such as:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads:

That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Wiki also has a very extensive entry entitled: "The History of Democracy" which does indeed go back to the very beginning (ancient Sumeria...2000 years before the Greeks) I'm reading it now and it's interesting stuff.

-pz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom