CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Freedom is not shot out of a gun
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Freedom is not shot out of a gun

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
There's this scene in Graham Greene's The Quiet American where the narrator, an English reporter in Viet Nam in late days of the French war there, is thinking about the Vietnamese people and comes to the conclusion that they just aren't ready for democracy. It isn't a racial thing - it's an estimation of their history, their economy, their education, and their culture. Democracy could never have flowered in feudal England, for example.

Yet America believes that it can blow into a country, drop a few tons of bombs, oust the current guys and create freedom. It just doesn't work that way.

Freedom is like a thought virus. It has to travel from person to person, it can't be imposed from the outside. When enough people have this thought virus it will reach critical mass and things will happen. There are ways to foster the spread of this thought virus, but it can never be done with the barrel of a gun.

What happens when Iraq is "liberated?" Well, we take over for a couple of years, and American oil companies come in to help take care of that nation's oil wealth, so the people of Iraq can use it (I'm not making this up, Rumsfeld said it on TV earlier). But who leads the new nation? I imagine that we bring in an Iraqi expat who will be in thrall to the oil companies. Maybe we bring two of them to give the semblence of a democracy, but I guarantee that if the Iraqi people chose someone we did not like to lead their country - well, I don't think they would be able to choose someone like that.

So now there's a new government, kowtowing to the oil interests, since the oil interests are helping to rebuild the economy of the nation. But the people are still uneducated, are scarred by decades of war that cost millions of lives, did not come to this place on their own, have an authority imposed on them from abroad, have angry neighbors who look at Iraq now as a beach head of American imperialism...

How long before this all goes south?

I'm no fan of the cultural imperialism America has marketed across the globe for the last few decades. The fact that Mickey Mouse and McDonalds are the symbols of this nation for most foreign people sickens me.

But it's this cultural imperialism that COULD spread the freedom thought virus. Imagine our efforts aimed at educating and feeding the world, helping people discover democracy, instead of turning them into consumers.

Imagine a world where America used its wealth and might in positive ways, instead of bombing desert nations or pissing off the majority of the planet.

People are going to respond to this with invective or snide jokes or they won't even bother reading past the first paragraph. Hey, I hate long posts too. But I think what I have written in here is true, and right, and I think you all know it in your hearts as well.
post #2 of 21
Devin

Not sure I agree with everything you have written, but am behind you re the substance of your message
post #3 of 21
Nice post Dev, unfortunatly the only things that I see coming true (in most of our lifetimes anyway) are your points about Iraq and what happens after we are "done" with the war.
post #4 of 21
I agree with a good portion of that, even if you were trying to make it longer than a Cosmic Ray post.
post #5 of 21
Quote:
Mike Defeated (Devin)
America believes that it can blow into a country, drop a few tons of bombs, oust the current guys and create freedom. It just doesn't work that way.

Freedom is like a thought virus. It has to travel from person to person, it can't be imposed from the outside. When enough people have this thought virus it will reach critical mass and things will happen. There are ways to foster the spread of this thought virus, but it can never be done with the barrel of a gun.
Excellent point.
Quote:
What happens when Iraq is "liberated?" Well, we take over for a couple of years, and American oil companies come in to help take care of that nation's oil wealth, so the people of Iraq can use it (I'm not making this up, Rumsfeld said it on TV earlier). But who leads the new nation? I imagine that we bring in an Iraqi expat who will be in thrall to the oil companies.

But the people are still uneducated, are scarred by decades of war that cost millions of lives, did not come to this place on their own, have an authority imposed on them from abroad, have angry neighbors who look at Iraq now as a beach head of American imperialism...

How long before this all goes south?
Well, to be fair, Iraq DID as recently as the late 80s have a thriving middle class (they've all but disappeared as a result of the UN embargo - I've come to the conclusion that "middle class" is the most tenuous social standing of 'em all), so they may be slightly more receptive to democracy than, say, some Vietnamese fellow who's been picking rice from the same paddy his whole life.
Quote:
I'm no fan of the cultural imperialism America has marketed across the globe for the last few decades. But it's this cultural imperialism that COULD spread the freedom thought virus. Imagine our efforts aimed at educating and feeding the world, helping people discover democracy, instead of turning them into consumers.
This is what is leading to the current groundswell among the younger generation in Iran to chuck the mullahs and embrace a more progressive path, so it CAN work.

Excellent post Dev; now the wait begins to see how long before you call Jabba a crackhead again. wink
post #6 of 21
not sure if this is an indication of things to come, but I just saw Iraqis kissing Marines, and giving Saddam the birdy, and doing the rock-n-roll sign.
post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 
That's probably more Iraqis realizing who the new boss is.
post #8 of 21
51st Dvision surrenders...

8,000 troops.
post #9 of 21
Well, I'd like to think your wrong on that, Devin. We'll probably never know for sure unless we eventually go to Iraq, rather than getting information filtered through sources that are biased one way or the other. But it's counterintuitive to me, as an American, to not believe that people are glad to be rid of Saddam, whatever the new regime may be.

(referring to Devin's most recent post, just for clarity.)

post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Guns N' CTDeLude:
51st Dvision surrenders...

8,000 troops.
This has to do with what in this thread?
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Mike Defeated (Devin):
Quote:
Guns N' CTDeLude:
51st Dvision surrenders...

8,000 troops.
This has to do with what in this thread?
I'd call that Iraqi troops knowing freedom when they see it.

But it was posted as a follow up to Nelson's post.
post #12 of 21
Yeah, I actually DO think the Iraqis are ready for democracy. I mean, even Saddam tried to pretend he was democratically elected, because he knew what the people wanted.

The problem is that the U.S. isn't going to say, "Well, there you go, fellahs! Y'all go vote as you see fit now!" and clear out. Giving them true democracy after the war, all of a sudden, would lead to further destabilization. Which is not what the U.S. wants.

If they do genuinely put in place an infrastructure that will allow them to gradually introduce democracy, they will gain many points in my estimation. The trouble is that that's simply not the U.S.'s track record on these things. They've been known to set up dictators who are every bit as cruel as Saddam, or leave a country in a shambles and ripe for another warlord to move in. Reemember, it takes several years for these effects to be known on a country, and by that point the world is no longer paying attention.

I'm all for importing American wealth and American culture to other countries, letting them have their MTV and their Disneyland. It worked for the former USSR, and if that was what the U.S. did, they would be beloved across the globe. The problem is that they don't seem too interested in setting up a long term situation where American culture can flourish--which is insane, because it's in everyone's best interest, ESPECIALLY their own.

We tend to sneer at the idea of a world where everyone's a consumer of American or American-style products, but in fact that would be a good jumping off point to something better...if we had it. But we don't. The people of Iraq don't buy a lot of DVDs or Nike shoes. America should be turning them into a potential consumer base, but they don't, because they're too short sighted.

True free-market capitalism: good. What we have now, though, is a system that short-sightedly protects the interests of a wealthy few.
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Maybe we bring two of them to give the semblence of a democracy, but I guarantee that if the Iraqi people chose someone we did not like to lead their country - well, I don't think they would be able to choose someone like that.
The last time this happened was in the mid-50's in Vietnam.

French efforts to keep the colony were defeated, and the U.S. got involved in brokering the peace agreement, which called for free democratic elections. Vietnam was also split into two states (North & South), which were scheduled to reunify after the election. When the Vietnamese voted overwhelmingly for Ho Chi Minh, the U.S. stepped in and claimed that the elections were rigged. They used the opportunity to financially support President Diem, who was the figurehead puppet leader of South Vietnam until he was assassinated about three weeks before JFK was shot in Dallas.
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Imagine our efforts aimed at educating and feeding the world, helping people discover democracy, instead of turning them into consumers.

Imagine a world where America used its wealth and might in positive ways, instead of bombing desert nations or pissing off the majority of the planet.
My optimism comes in the form of historical precedent: Germany & Japan. We bombed the mutherfuck out of both, helped both back up, both became worldwide economic powerhouses.

Just to add a little flavor here...
post #15 of 21
Quote:
California Kronos:
Quote:
Imagine our efforts aimed at educating and feeding the world, helping people discover democracy, instead of turning them into consumers.

Imagine a world where America used its wealth and might in positive ways, instead of bombing desert nations or pissing off the majority of the planet.
My optimism comes in the form of historical precedent: Germany & Japan. We bombed the mutherfuck out of both, helped both back up, both became worldwide economic powerhouses.

Just to add a little flavor here...
True, but the world was a different place then, coming out of a conflict in which virtually the entire globe was involved. There was co-operation and a genuine desire from all side, battered and exhausted by crippling war, to rebuild what had been bombed flat and start afresh.

I doubt we'll see that again, partly thanks to the unilateral attitude that America has taken on Iraq alienating many nations who would otherwise be allies, but also because this war is localised and, by historical standards, small.

How many nations can America afford to invade and then rebuild, with a domestic economy that's been punched in the groin? As with Afghanistan, I fear that the bulk of the investment will go into the bombing and destroying, with interest and money for rebuilding slowly petering out as the slow work of creating an infrastructure drags on, and the TV cameras move elsewhere.
post #16 of 21
Not only is it easier to destroy than create, it's also more exciting for those who prefer others think for them.
post #17 of 21
Interestingly, the UK government is refusing to use the phrase "war office" to describe the group in charge of the conflict. They've given it some bullshit title like "Military Advisory Comittee".

They've also refused to use the phrase "shock and awe" and have asked the British media to refrain from using it as well.

Interesting...
post #18 of 21
Couldn“t agree more Devin.
post #19 of 21
I just had this strange image of John Cleese as a mild-mannered reporter, with Vivian from the Young Ones up in his face screaming something like "Yew will NOT use that bloody stupid 'shock & awe' thing the yanks are yappin' about, y'hear? Or I'll drop a safe on your head, right?"
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Jamiepoole:
"and have asked the British media to refrain from using it as well."

By "asked" i assume they threatened.
They can I believe, use an oredr to force the press from withholding a story but not from using certain phrases.

I strongly suspect this phrase will come back to haunt the US and UK at many different levels
post #21 of 21
Quote:
Guns N' CTDeLude:
Quote:
Mike Defeated (Devin):
Quote:
Guns N' CTDeLude:
51st Dvision surrenders...

8,000 troops.
This has to do with what in this thread?
I'd call that Iraqi troops knowing freedom when they see it.

But it was posted as a follow up to Nelson's post.
This is not true from what has been reported today.

I would also suspect that some conscripts would surrender rather than die, not because they see freedom, but perhaps because they see death by not doing so.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Freedom is not shot out of a gun