posted
Having seen how quick people are to throw the fledgling democratic impulse in Iraq onto the ash-heap of history causes one to wonder: does Democracy spontaneously combust, or is Democracy like a fine wine that develops with time? If it is the latter, is it like a red wine that takes longer, or is it like a white wine that turns to vinegar if it isn't consumed fairly quickly?
It could be argued that England's first steps toward democracy began with the Magna Carta in 1215 and coalesced in the Commonwealth at the end of the 17th Century before going dormant again until World War I. So somewhere between 5oo and 700 years roughly with much bloodshed along the way. The United States in turn had a Revolution, an officer's offered coup and two expressions of democracy, again with alot of bloodshed in the war and some struggles between 1775 and 1791.
France has had a dubious relationship with democracy in its past. An extremely bloody civil war/revolution, dictatorial leaders at times preceeding the beating they took at the hands of the Franco-Prussian War as well as the continued pastings they got from Germany throughout the first half of the 20th Century. Bloody, repressive support of colonial regimes and arms sales that still couldn't rival the US but certainly impoverished many other nations. I think France still struggles to deal with its bloody formation in the 1790's. Germany had democracy imposed after two horrible World Wars (to the victors...) and as you look at other nations, how about the damage to democracy our own Civil War had on our nation.
Democracy is a fragile thing. The matrix of understanding and creating democracy is difficult. Is it restricted to Western culture? To suggest so is to be ethnocentric. Yet, can a system of governance be imposed? In Germany and Japan democracy was imposed and thrived, but it was less successful in Spain and Italy, occuring but with many birth pangs.
Given history suggests a cultural matrix of understanding and indigenization is necessary, what factors need to occur before democratic impulse can thrive in the Middle EAst?
Lebanon's tender coalition is an interesting model. Will it survive the present situation? Will it revive after the present situation ends?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Abraham Lincoln stood on the Gettysburg battlefield to utter these words. For a person who wasn't known for his eloquence, Lincoln could also sign these words into law:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." January 1, 1863
Good words, wonderful ideals, even if some would contend these very words, had they been enacted into law before the rebellion, would have bankrupted the Southern states. And the war came, testing our fabric as a nation. It has been eloquently argued that the reall issue was states' rights but the real issue was a way of life: could one person own another? Could a person of color be a full and free citizen in this Republic?
But I have to ask do those words mean anything as we near 150 years after the fact and our Southern neighbors of all ethnicities and both genders are often living in abject poverty? If our neighbors throughout the land endure the hardship and oppression of systemic poverty, are we truly free? Pretty words but do they mean anything when a century later, in 1963, the man who said this from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:
Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963. Source: Martin Luther King, Jr: The Peaceful Warrior, Pocket Books, NY 1968
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.
One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.
So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.
So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.
The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!!!"
So I ask, are we even at the point where democracy reaches every person in our "free" nation?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
GB said: "Democracy can't be forced on anyone."
It was "forced" on people in every case where it exists. Look at history GB. In the US only 33% supported the war. Washington's troops tried to make him king. We fought a Civil War to decide "whether any nation conceived in liberty could long endure." Our flirtation with cults of personality centering around generals demonstrates this as well. Democracy is not "inate." Political structures of every "-ism" become indigenized, they do not spring up.
In England bloody Civil War and the Commonwealth; while in France we saw bloody revolution as democracy asserted itself. Look at the struggles in Italy and Spain over democracy.
All political systems are an imposition of will flowing from what Nietzsche rightly called "the Will to Power." Thus are all political systems inherently flawed. Replication is impossible, but indigenization and contextualization will eventually triumph. That is precisely why I have not advocated a system of winning the peace through imposition of political system, but through what? Building hospitals, sanitation systems, infrastructure, schools, universities and culture centers where victims of colonial and Cold War powers can collect and learn from their own experience and develop their own identity. It is a price colonial and Cold War profiteers should pay for the exploitation of indigenous peoples around the world.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
"the Dems have been seeking to send a message of non-occupation while Bush says we are staying forever..."
Neither of your assumptions is correct Glass. Dems have labeled it an occupation which is an accurate assessment of the situation on the ground and some have called for its end, and Bush is saying we will stay until the Iraqi government is equipped to deal with the duties of governance.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
Bush is saying we will stay until the Iraqi government is equipped to deal with the duties of governance.
no, you are just hearing what you want to hear Bush say....
Bush has no intention of ever leaving and that is why the action is the way it is.....
i can pull you dozens of quotes that say clearly that Bush never considered US withdrawing at all...drawdown? yes, but NEVER withdrawl..
peaceful occupation buddy.... that's what Bush was hoping for... that's what the Iraqi's are pissed off about..
now? show me an occupation that was successful long-term OTHER THAN Japan and Germany... cuz that's what Bush keeps throwing up as an example to compare to....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
We never had democracy after our revolution, as we know it today we did have a document of written law that was flexable enough to allow us to evolve into a democracy as we know it now, and we are still changing. Look at what the rights were and for the most part who got them. And if you look at history our founding fathers were anything but men of peace and some weren't Christians. When they were talking about freedom were the slaves that over half of them owned were they to have it in this new Government?
Some rights were blanket rights for every body,thank you Daniel Shay and your army of veterans. All thouth i wish he would have hung the bunch of them. But at least we got the bill of rights out of his efforts.Again the threat of violence worked.
But I believe that you are right Griffon. I think people have to want it bad enough to struggle for it peice by peice and when it gets there they are aware of what they have and for a generation or two they chreish it after that it becomes more diluted and forgotten about also taken for granted.
IP: Logged |
posted
You are right Glass we are building some wheres in the neighborhood of 13 new bases I have heard in Iraq I have heard Bussh says there will be American presence there for another 50 or 60 years. Take a look at Germany after WWII and that is what Bush wants for Iraq
IP: Logged |
posted
"now? show me an occupation that was successful long-term OTHER THAN Japan and Germany... cuz that's what Bush keeps throwing up as an example to compare to...."
I wouldn't even call the German and Japanese occupations successful.
"peaceful occupation buddy.... that's what Bush was hoping for...that's what the Iraqi's are pissed off about.."
agreed, but where did I say it was peaceful? The objective I am suggesting is an Iraqi government that will stand on its own. To be honest, I am not sure it will stand on its own as a single, sovereign nation. I think we have another Yugoslavia, conflicting tribal groups whose identity as Iraq is nominal at best. The mandate system exacerbated the tribal tensions to make for easy rule. So I think the more accurate model is the break-up of the former Soviet Union into semi-confederation of independant states.
But as I have said before, if we had an exit strategy from the leader of this coalition, it would compel the leaders in Iraq to get serious about preparing or breaking up. Til then, petty factionalism turns into huge factionalism.
It looks like the two models I have presented: Yugoslavia and the so-called CIS, more than Germany and Japan and the potential for genocide if we leave now is great. Personally, I like CashCowMoo's suggested 1 year departure timeframe because it tells those leaders to get their country under control with our support or face the fire after. Is that acceptible if the latter is chosen? The American people will have decided by then.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
You mean for the next two years he's not planning a full withdrawl? I can agree with you there Glassman. After that it's irrelevant what Bush's hopes where. I think he probably assumes after he leaves office his effect on foreign policy will be greatly diminished.
And how stupid would it be to have a rapid reaction force in Iraq to deal with Iran? Not stupid at all.
Now if had this master plan to get bogged down in Iraq, why the quick victory in Afghanistan? Why not employ the same strategy, or better yet, not even go into Iraq, and just have the bogdown occur in Afghanistan?
I believe Afghanistan and the Phillipines are another example of what you are looking re occupations correct?
posted
Why did we need the womens sufferage movement in this country. And that ended in 1920 with women given the right to vote.Why did this country need the civil rights movement. And today we have another battle going on the gay rights movements. Not only the struggle for the gays rights before the law and protection under it but we have to stop a man from amending the constatution to make new laws that target them for discrimination. .No America is about no matter what somebody eles thinks of anothers life style and preferences that the person in thought should not have there rights taken away if we ever let that happen to one groupe it will happen to all.
IP: Logged |
posted
Gays are protected under civil rights no? I believe they should be protected and have same rights as everyone else, with the exception of marriage. Adopting, insurance, yeah I guess that's ok. I'm not real familure with insurance laws, is there a law saying you can only put a spouse on your insurance? I really don't have a problem with gay people, I believe it's a sin, but we all are sinners. But state sanctoned gay marriage, no thank you.
posted
"and the plan of the neo-cons was a puppet govt...that they held the strings to..."
perhaps but I am not a neo-con. Personally, my reason for posting this thread was to show in a sense both sides that Democracy doesn't form over night and never without struggle. I really think England's history shows that better than ours because you see the step-by-step progression, the peaks and valleys, better. Course that might be because they have been around like 1000 years longer than us.
To the neo-Cons that said, we'll get in, get out, set up a government and democracy will thrive, I wanted to say look folks democracy is a long process in any culture and at some point there must be a nucleus of action when a precipitating event arises. It is not enough to initiate that event. Chalabi is not George Washington, and given the factionalism in Iraq, there is no such persona right now, thus no nucleus of action. In American history, 33% of the people supported the war, 33% were opposed and 33% didn't care but the support was mixed throughout the country. That is not so in Iraq. That is lesson 1 from history about democracy.
To the Democrats who label the effort to form a democracy in the Middle East a failure, I would point to the same events mentioned above and say that it is too soon to measure that. We won't likely know how this will shape the imaginations of the next generation. Maybe they grow up saying: Democracy will never work, maybe they grow up saying "I have a dream." In fact, Glass, you and I will likely not see the end political result of ending Saddam's regime in our lifetimes. I say that because I for one do not intend to see 100 years.
At this point, the main thing we need to be doing is offering a stabilizing influence between conflicting factions and a partner in forcing a settlement in Israel/Palestine where both will be equal, non-provocative, non-aggressors, and partners in building an economy for both nations.
But let's come back to plans for Iraq. I have a wedding to perform in 5 hours so I need to go for awhile. Let me ask you a few questions about Iraq within the framework of this conversation and if you have time offer your vision for Iraq.
Assuming we leave Iraq in the next year what should our objectives be in that time?
Is democracy a realistic goal for Iraq at this time?
What would you like to see Iraq look like on July 31, 2007?
What is your hope for the Iraqi people?
How do we deal with Iran's plans for the region including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Israel?
We may disagree, but I do want to hear your views. As Cornell West said, we, starting with I, need to start listening to each other, and that is a skill we must always practice to improve.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
I believe with Glassman on the subeject of what I want for Iraq.
If I am to believe what Bush has said that we went there to remove a threat and to give the people of Iraq the right to determin there own future and give them the gift of liberty. Its simple just ask them what they want, And if they say we want freedom from you we go and let them live. If that is our real reson for being there the should be no ther answer to the problme.
IP: Logged |
posted
Than who is right here? Bdgee or Glassman? Glassman says the CIA was not under Cheny's thumb. Bdgee says the director of the CIA was trying to impress Bush. So he was not under Chenes thumb but was trying to impress Bush. If he is trying to impress Bush, how is he not under Cheney's thumb? Did Bush and Cheney have different agendas? How can he think he is going to impress the president by not being under the Vice President's thumb? How can you buck the vice president and still try to curry favor with the President? Is the vice president not an extension of the president? Doesn't make sense to me but I'll let you two work it out I guess.
Since when is what Glass... and I said in opposition.
1) Glassman says the CIA was not under Cheny's thumb.
2) Bdgee says the director of the CIA was trying to impress Bush.
Please be so kind as to explain in detail to us terribly poor logicians how either the statement in 1), proposed by Glassman, or the statement in 2), propossed by bdgee, contradicts the other. I am finding your suggestion that they are opposing ideas and one must be wrong a bit difficult to justify, if not plain silly. So, as requested, specifically show how they are so. Of course, I could be wrong.
Me thinks you are so enthralled with any and everything far right and pro-republican you have lost touch with reason.
IP: Logged |
Tenet, not Tenant, was hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney...he fell on his sword... i'm sure there's some deal already set up for him worth millions...
otherwise? he'll publish a 10 million dollar book after Bush leaves office....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
