Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:09:24 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Howard Brazee" <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Point taken - Let me re-phrase:   "Money spent on trying to convert
>>>> Iraqis to Democracy does not help the domestic economy nearly as much
>>>> as if the people had spent that money on consumer items".
>>>
>>> On the other hand, how much wealth was destroyed on 9/11? There is
>>> no way to know for sure how valuable dealing with terrorism will be,
>>> but one thing is clear: not dealing with it will be an unmitigated
disaster.
>>>
>>> Working to build a successful democracy in Iraq seems a better use of
>>> wealth than simply bombing the terrorists and potential terrorists out
of
>>> existence, no?
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> IMPOSING Democracy on anyone is simply...undemocratic.
>>
>> Some countries may not work well under Democracy. It is not a perfect
form of Government, simply better than the alternatives. For 
>> Democracy to work you need responsible, thinking citizens who can
separate Church and State.
>>
>> If a country is living in the Middle Ages, riddled with superstition
and fanatical religious zeal, it may well be simply UNABLE to 
>> adopt a workable democracy. Religious states are not Democracies; they
are subject to the dictates of God, as perceived by the 
>> population at large. The more extreme that perception, the less room
for Democracy. The God of most major religions is not known 
>> for being democratic; one reason people adopt religion in the first
place is because they want leadership.
>>
>> You don't think for one minute that, if everyone in the USA (or even
the vast majority) held the beliefs you do, it would be a 
>> Democracy, do you? :-)
>>
>> (Me, and people like me would be first against the wall...hardly a
democratic process...)
>>
>> The answer is education, not coercion.
>>
>> And some respect for the rights of others to be what they want to be
(provided they do no harm) would not be out of place, either.
>>
>> But, until then, "simply bombing the terrorists" may be a good course
of action... (provided you can definitively identify "the 
>> terrorists" of course...)
>
>I'm not saying it would be easy. It may not even be possible. Look at
>how much trouble Russia is having, and they chose democracy themselves.
>But world terrorism presents a desperate situation, requiring desperate
>measures. This is not a school picnic here. Many people in civilized
>countries are spoiled into thinking that every problem can be solved
>neatly. Some problems do not have solutions, and others have only messy,
>expensive and difficult solutions ones. This is not a problem that will
>just go away if we just ignore it.
>
>As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be found.
>But part of the "education" process is to provide a social environment
>in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are not
>prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it is
>the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem is
>being imported from other countries, like Iran.

Really?  Seria says hello.

Regards,
          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the
kids to
copulate me."
--  ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve