Posted on 01/16/2006 3:28:15 PM PST by Inkie
Just because a youth crosses the border from Kuwait doesn't mean he is Kuwaiti. I think most Kuwaiti citizen youths are too busy counting their money to want to get killed in Iraq.
Helprin is a fantastic writer, his pieces in the Wall Street Journal have been great. Now, since he is writing something that questions the Bush Administration, the LA Times sees fit to publish his piece.
That's not what we're promoting, anyway. This article is a straw man.
Pres Bush knows better than that. Who knows what animates his subconscious, even he does not know that. The author might think he has some kind of Freudian insight into Bush's subconscious, but we now need to attain some insight into the author's subconscious. What motivates the author to make this claim? Bad shushi yesterday?
Halperin may have had nothing to do with the "The Myth That Shapes Bush's World" headline; it may have been chosen by the LA Times editorial staff.
There's way too much stuff where people just read a headline and a couple of sentences and then immediately start posting "BARF ALERTS" because it's something they don't agree 100% with.
Halperin makes some good points and some dubious points but it's not some psychotic partisan rant.
At the outset of WW II, neither Germany nor Japan were functioning democracies. The governments may have been democratically elected at one point, but they had clearly become functional dictatorships.
Moreover, he fails to note the evidence at hand. There are two (and two only) Muslim populations that might be described as "at peace" -- and in that state for close to a century.
One is Muslim population of Turkey -- democratic since 1920. The other is India.
In India, the Muslim population is huge (the 2nd largest in the world, after Indonesia) and fully participates in the country's democratic governance (the PM of India is a Muslim). It is Pakistanis and Bangladeshi who are committing the violence in India and Kashmir, not native Muslims.
True, neither of these populations is ethnic Arab -- but being Muslim doesn't necessarily predispose one against the practice of democracy.
Finally, I would ask Halperin this: "If, in your opinion, evangelizing for democratic regimes is unproductive, what is it that you propose instead to deal with the problem of radical Islamism? Should we simply kill them all and be done with it?"
LA Times just pining for Stalin.
I thought Austria=Hungary started WWI?
Bush is trying this expedient, because "realism" has not worked. It remains to be seen if sufficient freedom can be introduced in a society so inimiical to the basic tenants of capitalism, which since the middle ages has gonme hand in hand with political liberty.
It is a stretch to call the state created by Bismarck a "democracy." Maybe a liberal monarchy.
The Kaiser had too much power to replace ministers to be a Democracy in the sense Great Britain's Constitutional Monarchy.
As Bagheot(sp?) said, the British government was a "disguised republic" by the time of Victoria's reaign. It was liberal to the extent that it has powerful political parties inimical with views views to those of the Government the Social Democrats and the Catholics (Center Party).
I thought I might revisit this in light of the Hamas win in the Palestinian territory. Helprin is right. Hamas, like Hitler, were elected by popular vote. It doesn't necessarily mean they won't wish to harm, first Israel, and then us (linking up with their better armed buddies like Iran, Syria, etc.).
Imperial Germany had well functioning Parliament with multi party system, local autonomy and self-government, and elections.
"The idea that democracies don't fight each other has been most strongly supported by U. of Hawaii researcher Rudolph Rummel. He has published several books filled with historical data and statistical analyses. Search Amazon under R. J. Rummel for his works."
You don't even need to buy his books. Much of his work is easily accessible on the web.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM
Browse around the site a little and you will find a devastating critique of this article.
"Given all this, what should be our expectation of a democratic world. First, I believe that the percent of democracies in the world will hit a critical mass, where their mass and overwhelming influence, wealth, and power will accelerate democratization elsewhere. Second, the democracies are already institutionalizing a community of democracies to act together in terms of their mutual interests. This can only increase their influence on the world and speed up democratization. Even without the effects of critical mass and community, considering the averages in Table 1 we should expect 90 percent democratization around the middle of the century. However, if we take into account the speed up of democratization due to the critical mass of democracies and the democratization policies of a community of democracies, I project that 90 percent of the world's people will become democratic in the second quarter of this century. Then the DPC will be at 10:40AM, an hour and twenty minutes before noon. And war and democide will be near an end for humankind."
A good example of millenarian heresy. There will be no new Paradise before the General Resurrection and Last Judgment.
Democracies will pass away too.
Imperial Germany's parliament was a joke. It did not run the government or the military. Effectively the German people had far less voice in their government than do the people of Iran today.
Could you elaborate?
Do you feel that way about the Japanese?
The reason I ask is that I have relatives who fought WWII that still do not. They do not believe that Japanese have it in them culturally to be peaceful and free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.