Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
1. I am not supporting this idea of spreading democracy everywhere.
2. I am against missionising in the name of democracy and religions of every kind, including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.
3. Many Western states claiming to support the spreading of democracy, have arranged themselves happily with exactly the opposite kind of regimes in the past if that matched their selfish interests. I also question the democratic nature of Westenr states themselves. there is too much oligarchy, too much plutocracy and too much interweaving between economy and politics (which should be independant from the economy'S lobby).
4. So who is "we", since you talked of "we" ?
5. I also think that democracies have no obligation to assist in the voting of options that bring democracies down by bringing those wanting to destroy or prevent democracy to power - as seen is the votings in turkey, Egypt and with the Palestinians. In turkey the AKP's ruling has destroyed already much of the secular heritage of Ataturk and brought a fundamentalist crew with a missionary sporit to power. In Egypt Mubarak was pressed to hold freer elections - and the conservative Muslim Brotherhood immediately made a jump upwards in the parliament. they would have gained much more if the elecitons would have been all free indeed. And thanks to free elections for the palestinians there is an established terror group named Hamas in command in the Gaza strip now.
6. In case of Germany, the constitution explicitly allows active resistance by everybody against everyone trying to overthrow the constitutional order of the German state. Since this constitution is said to protect democracy, you can conclude from this example as well that there is no obligation that a self-declared democracy must accept the election of powers that try to overcome democracy itself.
7. In France, Sarkozy just once again have spoken out against tolerating the burkha, saying that it is an aggressive and radical expressing of values that are incompatible with values France traditionally stand for. In other words: an existing social community, whether it be democratic or not, has no obligation to tolerate that in it's middle that violates the canon of values that define this social community.
To argue that freedom or/and democracy come at the price of accepting that what destroys oneself, is pathologic, self-damaging, if not suicidal. It also implies that one has no right to fight agai8nst such tendencies or forces, and shall not resist to them. Whoich then builds a brink to another pervertion in especially EU-thinking: that idea of unlimited tolerance. there can be no such thing as unlimited tolerance without denying your own identity, completely. Inly when you totally give up what you are yourself, and whyat you stand for, you can embrace what is not you and is different to you so completely as expressed in the term "unlimited tolerance". In other words: you not only give up yourself, but you also will to become the other what originally was "not you", completely. You delete your own identity. - As I see it, the EU steams with full pressure into this direction of deleting inner-european identities and also making it prone to growing Islamisation ("Eurabia" etc.).
|
The we I refer to as I always do in political discussions is the United States.
I understand that we does not include you.
Considering what appear to be your anti-democratic views and apparent disagreement with the basic premise that a free and self ruled people will seek to live in peace, that is a good thing.
Like it or not the official policy of the United States is that we support the spread of Democracy or whatever system allows the people to rule. For the President to indicate anything else would just guarantee him no chance at a 2nd term. Which would not bother me but he is no fool.
BTW How in the world can you use the hypothetical of "The People" electing a person that would advocate taking their right of self rule away? I am used to fighting a strawman, but that would have to be a strawbaby.