Michelle Mecca, Cristal Aniceto & Tarek Rahman
…In the Name of Democracy
"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves." Plato's Republic
It is undoubtedly part of our human nature to care for others, but have we gone too far? Throughout history, many mistakes have been made in the name of democracy. Vainly desiring to assist countries who haven't asked for help, America, for example, has a history that is dedicated to bringing democracy and independence to suffering peoples.
Democracy as defined by Webster’s dictionary is a form of government exercised either directly by the people, or through their elected representatives, and/or rule by majority, but what is explained by Chomsky is the polar opposite of what Is contained in that definition.
Question to focus on:
Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?
In 9/11 and The Doctrine of Good Intentions, Noam Chomsky is Calling for URGENT reaction (EXPLAINATION) to the “threat of another Hiroshima”, Chomsky’s BASES HIS ARGUMENT AROUND the main idea that:
“…Washington’s primary role in accelerating the race to destruction by extending its historically unique military dominance, coupled with policies of aggressive militarism, both in word and in deed, that are virtually an invitation to disaster.” All of those ideas directly in conflict with the goal of democracy.
Chomsky delves into the tragedy of September 11th by exploiting historical evidence all supporting reasoning as to how/why September 11th occurred; including Historical evidence from countries all over the map such as: Japan, Germany, England, and the United States. According to Chomsky, these countries all shared the same fate by blindly and forcefully offering “help” to people’s who did not have the resources to be helped, nor the desire to be helped in the ways deemed correct by the more powerful country.
Through Righteous exceptionalism, these countries took it upon themselves to take action to “selflessly bear[ing] the costs of bringing peace and justice to the world” by forcefully instituting changes to foreign people’s lives under the premises that they were taking the morally sound and justified actions.
The main idea that helped us understand the title and validate Chomsky’s argument is Wilsonian Idealism and sober realism, before taking action, one (a country) must base their action on noble intentions and one must realize the limitations of our good intentions. By working strictly under these premises, there is no room for error or exploitation of another human being for personal benefit.
The United States Government declared war on Iraq, but do we even know why? Was it because they had weapons of mass destruction? Because they had ties with Al Queda and 9/11? --- AFTER engaging in military action and finding out none of questions had a black or white answer, the president stayed in the war for reasons of spreading democracy and overthrowing a violent regime.
We can sit in long debates trying to justify any war, but to what extent can it be for the good of a nation and its citizens to go to war or become the target of war. Under Nazi rule, Germany caused horrific crimes against Jews in the name of “saving the world from ‘annihilation’ by the ‘indifferent mass’.” England ruled over India and China, justified in the name of bringing peace and justice. America justifies going to war in its philosophy by bringing democracy and independence.
Are all in the name of “Good intentions”?
An interesting blog posted by the self proclaimed “shrewd investigator” offers to put ALL of what Chomsky is saying into perspective using events occurring up to today’s date, and he also analyzes the historic quote from Plato’s Republic, showing how it still holds true thousands of years later. http://theshrewdinvestor.net/?p=426
Historical evidence some may have forgotten or do not know
1. Bosnia ; A war for the difference of religion… Which side to take? Could it have triggered 9/11 ?
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=1985
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/igniting-Bosnia.html
2. Somalia; For the good of the hungry? Somalia is a war that no one wants to touch...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/us-wages-food-war-against-somalia
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7422
Questions to consider :
- Historically, do you believe aggression was portrayed as self-defense to promote conformity? Was this tactic successful and/ or temporarily successful for the aggressor?
- Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?
-Do you believe that democracy is beneficial enough to be forced onto historically un-democratic societies?
-Has the human race learned anything from our history, or are we doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes?
-Do you agree with Chomsky suggesting the educated class is to blame for war crimes/ should they be going to trial?
-Was Saddam Hussein really a defenseless target?
-Was the Vietnam war worth fighting for?
-Are the poor inherently ignorant?
-Who should pay for the death of so many innocent civilians/ will anyone ever pay?
“Faith in Government Defies Both History and Reason”. I saw this quote printed on some guys t-shirt in Kyle Cassidy's book “Armed America, Portraits of Gun Owners in Their Homes”. I love this quote ... I really do; it says a lot about faith and I think it really puts the position of government in question. I will never understand how anyone can (or be expected to) support an institution that simply does not (despite its claims) put their individual interests before its own. Government is always going to look after itself before it even thinks about the individuals it governs. It, just like Wall Street, has a purpose to serve and that is to its "shareholders" ... in both scenarios we the people are simply costumers—consumers who need (or want) what is being doled out. The only difference being, Wall Street doesn't necessarily lie to us; its intentions are clear. Washington, on the other hand, does lie, and their lies are of a very sinister nature.
ReplyDelete... Just a little rant there ...
-Do you believe that democracy is beneficial enough to be forced onto historically un-democratic societies?
I don't think anything is beneficial enough to be forced on anyone—democracy (politics), religion et al. That said, America is not the only country guilty of this, there were quite a few Eastern European countries that “absorbed” Soviet socialist doctrine against their will.
-Do you agree with Chomsky suggesting the educated class is to blame for war crimes/ should they be going to trial? Are the poor inherently ignorant?
Here is one area where I part with Chomsky ... in the second question anyway (I kind of see these as parts of the same question). Sure ... those that manipulate the war are ultimately to blame, and they should be prosecuted— Nuremberg; of course we know what happened to poor Lynndie England and Co. in Abu Ghriab. Was she/they guilty? I don't really know, she and her cohorts were clearly acting out scenarios in an environment where that behavior was clearly deemed acceptable ... as they were pretty blatant.
However the notions of the educated class and their responsibility in regards to the uneducated classes? ... well, this is just another form limousine/armchair liberalism. It is dangerous thinking. It keeps notions of a class system in existence. It assumes the positions of the uneducated from the wrong perspective, it is in a sense, on the part of the educated, a form of slumming—“they aren't what we are therefore cannot be happy and hence in need of our assistance”. The military isn't the only option for the “disenfranchised”, it just isn't.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we're quoting the Republic ... In Adeimantus' speech to Socrates he states: "[when one asks himself] 'Should I by justice or by crooked deceit scale this high wall and live my life guarded and secure?' And he'll answer 'The various sayings suggest that there is no advantage in my being just if I'm not also thought just, while the troubles and penalties of being just are apparent. But they tell me that an unjust person, who has secured for himself a reputation for justice, lives the life of a god. Since, then, opinion forcibly overcomes truth and controls happiness ... I should create a facade of illusory virtue around me to deceive those who come near, but keep behind it the greedy and crafty fox of the wise Archilochus.'" (365b)
ReplyDeleteFor Archilochus' fox and the hedgehog see: http://www.kheper.net/topics/typology/Fox_and_Hedgehog.html
I agree with Chomsky that quite often “aggression was portrayed as self-defense”, as an attempt to save the world etc. The question “how successful this tactic is” is difficult to answer, because the answer will probably be yes and no, because when you ask about the “aggressor”, the question arises who is the aggressor? The country with all its population? or the units of government who make the decision to start the war? The war is quite unbeneficial to ordinary population of the country of the aggressor and , as Chomsky mentions, the majority of population usually doesn’t want war, no one really wants to die, no one want their loved ones to die; from financial point of view, the war is quite expensive, because the money that could be spent on education, healthcare, to help to third world countries or elsewhere will be spend to kill millions of people, in the name of some “idea” ( liberation, democracy, communism, church etc). And this is brutal. So, obviously, if the aggressor is the country and the people who live there – then aggression does not seem to be the best way to solve the problems. Again, if we talk about the aggressor in a different way, since it’s not the people, really, who want the war, there is always someone else who decides for them what ‘s best for the country, may be for those people who make such decisions, the war is somehow beneficial, because they get something out of it. Another question that comes to my mind, when I try to answer the question : was the tactic successful for the aggressor ? is: What do we mean by the word success here? Successful for what? There is always an official explanation for the aggression, for example, in the case that the article is talking about it is to establish the democracy in third word countries ( that did not ask for democracy or liberation) , and as history proves, aggression can not successfully solve those “official” problems. On the other hand, we know that behind that official reason for the war there is always another one, that no one is talking about , because that would sound immoral. It may be to prove the influence, to get the access to certain resources, certain territories that would make perfect military bases or something else, and in this case, aggression may be quite useful. Is it humane? No. Moral? No. but, unfortunately, the politicians do not care about the morality and humanity (even though they will tell you they do , and they will cover up the real reasons for aggression with the official reasons: self-defense, liberation and conformity). Because of that, I also agree with Chomsky that when we are talking about the war crimes the “intelligent” people who make decisions should be held responsible, not the soldiers who have only two choices: to kill or to get killed.
ReplyDeleteI would really love to say how I feel about the war on Iraq but I am not allowed to. I have seen many things that I know are wrong but as said in the name of liberation it was allowed. Do I feel that Iraqis were treated unfairly? Yes they were. We had no reason to be in Iraq in the first place and this is more political than anything else, this is just USA pushing around the little guys has they have always done. To this day, we still have no proof of Iraqi WMD or any affiliations with Al Qaida. Colin Powell said we made a mistake with invading Iraq as they had no WMD and where is he now. This is not about conspiracy but the United States even when wrong will never openly admit it.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to say the educated people are responsible and should be blamed for the war. I believe politicians are to be blamed for all the wars, they are always the ones calling for it and they never get to the front line. It has been said that if politicians had to fight in the wars they want there would never be another war. And because the politicians are the ones responsible, no one will ever be tried for any of these wars. It is also in our nature to make excuses for our mistakes when we look back at them and this is the apparent reason why we will never learn from our mistakes. We are bound to repeat our mistakes as we feel we now know better. United States has always poked their noses into other countries affairs and not always credited for doing a good thing. When will the US learn that they are the most hated country on earth, others only welcome them in their times of need but hate them when they interfere.
This was the most interesting question to me. Was Saddam Hussein really a defenseless target? It is hard to say, when a kid steals something, should he always be punished for that? If you do something wrong should we overlook everything else and punish you for something you hadn’t done because you are guilty of other things. Saddam is by no means a good man; he has killed thousands of innocent Iraqis who didn’t believe in his rule, and has hurt so much more than he has helped. We now know there are no WMDs in Iraq and we think Bush knew there were none before he invaded. When Saddam was tried as sentenced to death, he was not tried for terrorism or the possession of WMD, he was charged for genocide and war crimes against Iraqi citizens. It is interesting but a very hard question to answer, as he is not an innocent man, but he was definitely a target.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I want to discuss the paragraph from the Financial Times. It says, Philip Stephens stated that the problem is " US strategy is overly dominated by Wilsonian idealism." I'm not against the promotion of Democracy. I am against useless promotion and useless attempts to promote Democracy. We have this intention of spreading a good thing yet we are actually doing bad by spreading it. These good intentions have resulted in bad outcomes. Why? Noam Chomsky blames the educated people and I do see what is being said but on the other hand politics is extremely controversial. I'm sure there are people at Harvard and MIT who have opposed views on topics concerning foreign policy and what not. "
ReplyDelete"We must understand that Iraqis and others in the Middle East may not be able to rise to the heights that we have planned for them." Like I said before, promotion of democracy is not a bad thing. The problem is that we are directing this toward places that won't accept. If someone won't accept then we aren't justified in going to extreme lengths of war because we have good intentions in the promotion of Democracy. Another thing is with the soldiers and war crimes. Of course there are soldiers that will not follow protocol. Of course there are hot headed soldiers but thats inevitable. Most soldiers are good but you will get the ones who don't care and do what they want. This applies to everything. Look at the Police force. Most of them do good but there are crooked ones. Look at any organization and you will find a few bad ones within. I think the US gets caught up in the wrong affairs. When we get caught up in these wrong affairs war and killing take place. Obviously we will come up with some justification in it. Why? This is obvious. Hitler never believed he conducted a Genocide because he believed that his actions were backed by the right intentions. We feel we are justified in what we do because we believe that our actions were backed by GOOD INTENTIONS. I know a Hitler comparison is crossing the line but my point is that we you believe the cause is right in your eyes the action is justified. Its like Chomsky said " That's universally called Genocide, when the Serbs do it. When we do it, its liberation."
Its all based off a belief system that leads people to justify and do what they think is right. For example, we have laws and when someone breaks the law we put them in jail. This is all find and dandy but what about the controversial laws. Just because their is a belief doesn't mean it is a right belief. Look at prohibition, people were getting thrown in jail for drinking alcohol. The way to justify that was that alcohol was bad and illegal. Looking back on things now, Was it right that people were thrown in jail for consuming alcohol?"
We have to understand that Democracy is the best government IN OUR EYES. We can promote it. It is not illegal to promote but we can't use this extreme force that we have been using. Its like religion. Everyone has a different belief and you are allowed to exercise that belief as long as you don't kill and hurt the ones around you. Just because someone of a certain belief is so confident in his/ he belief that doesn't give him the right to force people to convert. That person can promote his religion by going around and talking to people about it. That person can't kill and harm other people through trying to convert people and then turn around and say it was backed by a "good intention."
Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal? Do you believe that democracy is beneficial enough to be forced onto historically un-democratic societies?
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say no (to both). Maybe I'm going through a bitter period (after the last text about Happiness and midterms) but I think humankind is inherently full of terrible people and their terrible ideas. As soon as you are born you are forced into a society and a world that is mean. There are beautiful things and wonderful people and great places on Earth, for sure, but this planet is corrupt and we're fucking it up all the time. Whether you become a terrible adult or a good-natured one, depends on your education, upbringing, country and family. I'm not trying to say that everyone is an ass and everyone is mean to one another but kindness is a learned quality, I don't think it comes naturally to us.
That being said, I strongly believe that there is no way to establish democracy without contradicting the ultimate goal of democracy. If the government is trying to be democratic, then it's the people that should be pushing for it (as democracy is a government supposedly for and by the people), not the government.
Secondly, I don't think that democracy is beneficial enough to be imposed on un-democratic governments. Democracy is a step I think nations need to go through to get somewhere else (like Socialism for example) because I think that starting from scratch to Socialism or Communism breeds a type of dictatorship (you can conjure examples). Democracy should be a stepping stone, but if imposing it in a society and on a government that is not ready or willing to accept it, it's not going to take. It's going to be foreign and hated more than a tourist. In my opinion, government is something that if imposed, only leads to violence, and I think the same case is true with democracy.
Cristal, Michelle, & Tarek, thank you for your post. In tandem with the responses, it seems as if we'll have a fairly lively discussion this afternoon. Also, sorry for posting with class so imminent, but the World Series diverted my attention last night (which is a viable excuse).
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you bring up Plato's "Noble Lie" when one of the precedents that Chomsky outlines as a ingredient (which may or may not ruin dinner when combined with other ingredients) for reasonable American foreign policy is "noble intentions." Noble, in both uses, should be concurrent with "exhibiting an idealistic moral sensibility," but it is also denotative of a position of privilege -- in both instances, privilege to be in a position in which one is able to purport "intentions" in a particular situation or a "lie" or define the underlying moral code. Of course, what must underlie all of this is an ideology, which is unspoken, known, and derivative of forces outside human intention (hence Chomsky's opening sentence, "It is no easy task to gain some understanding of human affairs..." and later statement, "...barriers to understanding...flow very naturally from concentration of power..." (141).) I might be misappropriating Chomsky's idea here as I am, I think, perscribing an inhuman quality to the "concentration of power" in that it may be comprised of human beings, but in the amalgam of sociopolitical forces it mimics nothing close to individual human "intent".
I, because it is fresh in the mind, return to Zizek, not with a comparison but a question (well, a little of both):
Is this not also an example of what Zikek would consider a frightening realization that "the other knows the truth" or is it even more frightening that we assume that the other (in whom we put our trust, in some cases) knows the truth (or Truth) when, in fact, they are just as ignorant to pervading ideological forces as everyone else?
Reading Chomsky, I am forced to side with those that believe the US is run with a Wilsonian idealism. This is the idea that the government boasts (or may even actually believe) that they are doing what they are doing to better others. We all like to believe we are helping people in need but the US went to such drastic measures in Vietnam and Iraq. Measures that may not have been necessary had we looked past the reasons they were giving us to another level.
ReplyDeleteThe war of Vietnam was a cruel battle, a battle that affect the country in an irreversible way. Last semester I had the opportunity to visit a Vietnam Veteran museum. Their stories were told through an oral history. I looked into their eyes as their voice played, so strong and real as if I was sitting in the room with the Veteran. It is hard to think about what the US has done to "help" others. I say "help" because it was not done for their own good but rather for what the US believed was THEIR own good. The US managed to spin a story about how we were helping them.
I believe it is part of human nature to spin a story to make it sound as though you are doing you best to help someone else. I may not realize when I do this but it goes along the lines of telling someone they look beautiful when they really don't. I did it so they would get some satisfaction. I don't start out doing this to dupe someone but I just want that person to feel good about themselves. It may turn out that yes, I went a step too far, but the government went too many steps too far.
I feel that Chomsky accurately describes the dual nature of the United States' intent and purpose. We outwardly state to be watchdogs of international politics, yet it becomes an excuse to meddle in other nation's business. According to Chomsky we are facing a conflict of ideals, between idealism and realism. Our government and media distorts perceptions to give us the idea that aggression and terror are means of "self- defense and dedications to inspiring visions". Using rhetoric and other embellishments we are blinded to the side intentions of those that govern us. We must re-evaluate policy and the way we run this country and by being too idealistic we impede progress.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I started reading this, I was wondering how Iraqi war veterans would react to it, and most namely, (not to put you on the spot, if you‘re reading this) Nate’s opinion of what Chomsky had to say. Without a proper starting point on the huge potentiality of U.S foreign policies during war time, I want to start by agreeing with Chomsky opinion that the actual soldiers in the battlefield are not to blame, as much as the so-called “head honchos” in Washington. Chomsky writes,
ReplyDelete“But what about the guys from Harvard or MIT who planned these attacks and other actions…The people who are sitting in places like MIT have choices. They have privilege, they have education, they have training. That carries responsibility.” (128-131)
In saying this, Chomsky points out that the true criminals throughout history are not the ill-named “grunts” of war, but rather the people who plan the attacks, faceless behind the curtain of democracy and “good intentions.” He continues to describe the differences between the type of people that plan, and the soldiers that act and follow order during the war. And I agree with him wholeheartedly. The people that are typically hired or that volunteer for the war are seen as the poor and uneducated of the U.S, and the people that are the true benefactors of the U.S.’s war atrocities are the college graduates and professionals, “guys like us, in ties and jackets, sitting in air conditioned offices.” The “uneducated poor GIs” in the field are simply dummies to have close to no choice but to fight in a war, whether they agree with it or not. The graduates, however, have such a large amount of choices; it is through their choice that they hold their high position, and it is through their choice that they knowingly direct their GI dummies to commit war crimes. Again, the soldiers are put to blame, and their martinets are praised for supporting democracy over seas.
The amount of examples of the U.S shoving their ideals down the throats of helpless countries, and then being put onto a higher pedestal for their efforts in promoting democracy and for implying “good intentions” shown in Chomsky’s work is staggering. He compared two very close, nearly identical instances where crime was committed by one country to another’s citizens, and he describes the drastically different effects. Long story short, America is highlighted as righteous fighters for good, and the people who did the same crime are disgraced by the history books forever.
Democracy, simply put, is just a perception of “rule by the people” from its original roots in Greek. Nowhere in its meaning implies its use as a shield for ulterior motives, or as an excuse for something just blatantly wrong. In my opinion, it should NEVER be forced down another countries throats. Nationally, form of government should be treated as a form of religion; in no absolute book of humanity does it say that one triumphs over its kindred. This reminds me specifically about my topic, involving Islamic integration into the U.S post 9/11, in which I came across a story that described an American woman, who believed she was fighting for a feminist cause, going over to Saudi Arabia, and professing that she understood the situation there and that the women there should feel liberated enough to take off their hijabs and niqabs. The women there rejected her, saying the woman did not understand them at all, and that they wore their religious garb for themselves and to secure their closeness to the faith. Just because Americans feel that Islamic women are oppressed and are forced to wear those types of clothes (mind you, based completely on falsehood) feel that they have to go over to foreign soil and make the change themselves? Ultimately, I brought that story up to describe American foreign policy as I and many others see it: America sticks their noses into places it doesn’t belong, full with ulterior motives and false information, all under the hood of democracy and the notion that making people like them is a tenet of “good intention.”
ReplyDeleteFinally, I want to mention the Vietnam war and the Iraqi war, also filed under the misnomer of “the war against terrorism.” The soldiers here, are by far, the least to blame, and the puppet masters holding the strings are to blame. I have the utmost respect for soldiers in the U.S armed forces. I agree with Chomsky when I state that to an extent, an army is necessary (he goes further to discuss volunteer armies vs. mercenaries). For a soldier to go through what I could not, makes them all the more impressive to me. I agree that the educated class is to blame, and inherently, more evil than individuals behind single instances of warm crimes. The soldiers in the Vietnam and Iraqi war are being controlled by the higher-ups, and to blame them would mean nothing, and would change nothing. The soldiers, as well as the people the educated class has forced their icy, bile drenched fingers onto during wartime are the true victims.
This was another difficult text for me. I admit that I am not all versed in politics. Therefore, I was most drawn to the notions Chonsky presented of how these wars have been "marketed" to the public. He begins to discuss this when talking about how Russia was presented to the people by the United States government during the Cold War. How they purposely amped up certain things creating a "misimpression" of the Soviet Union to gain acceptance of what our government was trying to achieve. The misrepresentation of what truely is to get something done. "The doctrine of good intentions." for what is deemed what is right for us as a society. Bending the truth. The question: Do you agree with Chomsky suggesting the educated class is to blame for war crimes/ should they be going to trial? Once again, coming from an admitted ignorant position, yes I do. I think those in power, the educated, should be accountable for their actions no matter how far away from their own hands it is. It is a basic concept in management and I as a business owner know that the actions of my employees weather they be positive or negative are a trickle down from policies that I have put into place. I take responsibility personally if an employee messes up. It as my job to teach them properly. If I was telling them to kill someone, they would do it but I was the one who told them to do it. My idea, my responsibility. The idea that the numbers can be so far off between actual and what has been put down in history of these heinous war crimes goes to show you that there are very powerful people adjusting history for a specific reason. How is this getting us anywhere as a society? Is this because the idea of human affairs is so slippery? I feel all this behaviour of bending the truth does is makes us chase our tail in a circle with no progress.
ReplyDeleteI feel that war is not the answer in many of these scenarios. Like most of the class said we have no right going on the Iraqi lands, and the U.S. is known for budding their noses in places they shouldn’t. We try to help every country and in return when we were the victims, only a few out of the many we helped had our back.
ReplyDelete-Has the human race learned anything from our history, or are we doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes?
The U.S. just has to realize to mind their own business, and not get caught up into others brawls. We keep making the same mistakes because we don’t realize what we do to other countries, and then why they come and attack us. I feel by making mistakes is how you learn but in some of these situations a lot of lives are spared because of our mistakes and that’s not worth it.
-Do you agree with Chomsky suggesting the educated class is to blame for war crimes/ should they be going to trial?
I don’t think the educated class is the only people we should point the finger at. I feel it’s just that we hear from them mainly more than others, so its not that their the only ones saying things, its everyone’s input on the situation we just mainly hear their views.
-Was Saddam Hussein really a defenseless target?
No because he knew what he was going when he was training these “terrorist”. He knew what he was doing with the Quran twisting the words of a scared book for his own game to attack a defenseless country. Even though our country doesn’t seem defenseless we didn’t know of the presumed attack on the twin towers and the pentagon.
-Who should pay for the death of so many innocent civilians/ will anyone ever pay?
No one will ever pay for the lives lost in these wars because they weren’t worth losing at all. Although their deaths are remembered they will never be avenges. Theses lives lost during these pointless wars were a terrible waste of human beings only because of these so called government could come up with a solution that didn’t revolve war.
Democracy is something we as Americans see as the perfect system but what gives us the right to force others to follow the same system. Democracy is a system that is changed by the people to benefit the people. If we go into another country and it’s not the will of the people to change their way of life what gives us the right to try to force them to turn their system into a democratic one. An example of this is countries in the Middle East where men are above women. The women could choose to change things which would require them to overcome several obstacles so they could make themselves heard but instead don’t and live their lives by the rules of their country. Would it be right for the U.S. to help these women with their struggles and in the process change their country to a democracy or do we just decide on which countries we want to change and which ones we don’t want to get involve in.
ReplyDeleteI believe the U.S. hasn’t learned from its mistakes in the past. In the short time the U.S. has existed there have been several wars and during the times it has taken a part in them it has always caused there to be poverty and domestic problems to continue being unresolved. Being part of war and helping other countries isn’t good and it’s been proven because during the time before world war one there was a period where the U.S. was most prosperous than ever and it was because of non intervention. Today non intervention doesn’t seem to exist because from the beginning of the war on terror I don’t even know how many countries have been affected by it because there is always another suspicion of a country being involved.