My take on Bush's "domino theory"

[jaeger115]

You've all heard Bush say that we must introduce democracy to Iraq so it will cause a domino effect throughout the Middle East, blah, blah, blah. This reminds me a bit of the Western empires of the last 400 years that called for the "civilizing" of the natives of the New World in order to "enlighten them". And we know from history that these empires did more damage to the natives than they intended. I think we're looking at a repeat of history here.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

[Enforcer Talen]

remind me again what's worse then what they have?

[weemadando]

You've all heard Bush say that we must introduce democracy to Iraq so it will cause a domino effect throughout the Middle East, blah, blah, blah. This reminds me a bit of the Western empires of the last 400 years that called for the "civilizing" of the natives of the New World in order to "enlighten them". And we know from history that these empires did more damage to the natives than they intended. I think we're looking at a repeat of history here.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

*Cough cough*

Vietnam being the first domino...

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Score another one for US foreign policy.

[jaeger115]

*Cough cough*

Vietnam being the first domino...

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Score another one for US foreign policy.

YEAH!

Tell that to Bush! Of course that dumbfuck wouldn't listen...

[Illuminatus Primus]

You've all heard Bush say that we must introduce democracy to Iraq so it will cause a domino effect throughout the Middle East, blah, blah, blah. This reminds me a bit of the Western empires of the last 400 years that called for the "civilizing" of the natives of the New World in order to "enlighten them". And we know from history that these empires did more damage to the natives than they intended. I think we're looking at a repeat of history here.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

*Cough cough*

Vietnam being the first domino...

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Score another one for US foreign policy.

Well the Cold War always was more about containing Communism controlled from Moscow than it was about actually spreading democracy.

[jaeger115]

Well the Cold War always was more about containing Communism controlled from Moscow than it was about actually spreading democracy.

Then why did Nixon order bombings and Agent Orange on Vietnam? He should have put troops on the border between North and South (assuming that he doesn't know that the South's government was already corrupt) to fight off the North's attacks and also move troops into the South to weed out the Viet Cong.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You've all heard Bush say that we must introduce democracy to Iraq so it will cause a domino effect throughout the Middle East, blah, blah, blah. This reminds me a bit of the Western empires of the last 400 years that called for the "civilizing" of the natives of the New World in order to "enlighten them". And we know from history that these empires did more damage to the natives than they intended. I think we're looking at a repeat of history here.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

Can you defend your statement that the Western Empires did damage to the regions they conquered? Can you provide proof that any area of the world colonized by a western power would have had the equivlants or superiours to western technology, nominal or effective western legal and democratic organizational concepts, or (In the case of many regions) a state organization at all?

You hear things like "So many people in Africa don't have running water", and it gets blamed on colonialism. Nobody in Africa had running water - not even their relatively advanced civilizations in Zimbabwe and Ethiopia - Without western invention and intervention.

Sure, perhaps it could have been developed by such civilizations on their own, but is that an automatic presumption?

People make these vast assumptions that somehow colonialism made life worse for the average native in a country that has been previously colonized. That is completely false. Life is better in those countries than it was several centuries ago (duh). That's basically a universal truth.

The only question is if development was retarded by colonialism, and that is unproveable. Western civilization's dynamism seems to have been something only nearly-copied in India and China, and in both cases it died out on its own before the colonial era. It succeeded in the West and eventually - sometimes after extreme brutality and sometimes in a peaceful fashion - the rest of the world has reaped the benefits.

Does that mean colonialism was a good thing? Well, not for the people oppressed and murdered - But for the people in those countries who benefit from the advances brought to them in the long term?

The reason everyone in the third world hates the colonial era is because of the mercurial nature of humanity; the envy of the powerful is ingrained within us.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

*Cough cough*

Vietnam being the first domino...

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Score another one for US foreign policy.

The domino effect unquestionably happened after Vietnam, with the fall of Laos and Cambodia to communism. It is a proven action ideologically in geopolitical events. Of course, Thailand was strong enough to avoid its action against the Thai State, and with the general rollback of Communism, we have seen the failure of the two domino regimes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Incidently, after the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq, I suspect that we will see the fall of the regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran (from internal popular action with minimal covert support) within less than a year, but I am uncertain as to if any of the other regimes in the region are unstable enough, and the result galvanizing enough, that the singular intervention will have an effect of bringing democracy elsewhere.

That may require additional military action, or covert support of certain groups. Certainly another intervention in Lebanon would be a pleasant thing, especially since it would weaken the Syrian State and perhaps force reforms.

Bahrain and Oman have partial constitutional monarchies and this action should strengthen them, along with the democratic element in Jordan - Assuming it survives any Palestinian backlash - While Egypt is an uncertain factor.

Yemen and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are States where democracy is at this time largely impossible. The KSA will need decades if not a century's worth of development to be ready for it, and Yemen is a nearly disunified tribal area with a loose central government that could never handle representative democracy, unless the central government were to be massively strengthed against the outer regions, which seems unlikely.

The UAE is in the same boat as the KSA, except that the very large percentage of foreign workers there threatens even greater destabilization. In Qatar and Kuwait, we'll just have to see. Certainly, democracy is possible along the Levant and in Mesopotamia, because these regions have the civil society to support it. The chances for democracy in Arabia proper, however, are less certain by far.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Incidently, after the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq, I suspect that we will see the fall of the regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran (from internal popular action with minimal covert support) within less than a year, but I am uncertain as to if any of the other regimes in the region are unstable enough, and the result galvanizing enough, that the singular intervention will have an effect of bringing democracy elsewhere.

That may require additional military action, or covert support of certain groups. Certainly another intervention in Lebanon would be a pleasant thing, especially since it would weaken the Syrian State and perhaps force reforms.

Bahrain and Oman have partial constitutional monarchies and this action should strengthen them, along with the democratic element in Jordan - Assuming it survives any Palestinian backlash - While Egypt is an uncertain factor.

Yemen and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are States where democracy is at this time largely impossible. The KSA will need decades if not a century's worth of development to be ready for it, and Yemen is a nearly disunified tribal area with a loose central government that could never handle representative democracy, unless the central government were to be massively strengthed against the outer regions, which seems unlikely.

The UAE is in the same boat as the KSA, except that the very large percentage of foreign workers there threatens even greater destabilization. In Qatar and Kuwait, we'll just have to see. Certainly, democracy is possible along the Levant and in Mesopotamia, because these regions have the civil society to support it. The chances for democracy in Arabia proper, however, are less certain by far.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Stupid ignorant prick. Look at Thailand, Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia before you bullshit again. That is South East Asia.

Communist? Not in your fucking dreams.

The US' actions in Vietnam saved the fledging democracies in the region. If not for the Vietnam War, I'd be living under Cuba-like conditions. Malaysia would have been overthrown by the Malayan Communist Party, with or without the SAS.

The reason everyone in the third world hates the colonial era is because of the mercurial nature of humanity; the envy of the powerful is ingrained within us.

Not everyone. Those who can think for themselves don't, at the very least.

The Angry Guy

[Falcon]

You've all heard Bush say that we must introduce democracy to Iraq so it will cause a domino effect throughout the Middle East, blah, blah, blah. This reminds me a bit of the Western empires of the last 400 years that called for the "civilizing" of the natives of the New World in order to "enlighten them". And we know from history that these empires did more damage to the natives than they intended. I think we're looking at a repeat of history here.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

*Cough cough*

Vietnam being the first domino...

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Score another one for US foreign policy.

democrat foreign policy maybe

[HemlockGrey]

Oh, yes, blame everything on the Democrats...

[Andrew J.]

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Stupid ignorant prick. Look at Thailand, Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia before you bullshit again. That is South East Asia.

Communist? Not in your fucking dreams.

Of course, that's the whole point of his sarcasm. They're not communist, so domino theory is wrong.

Learn to recognize a joke, you stupid bastard.

[meNNis]

children, children... caaaalllm.....

[weemadando]

Well, when I look at SE Asia now all I see is one giant communist superstate stretching from China to Australia.

Stupid ignorant prick. Look at Thailand, Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia before you bullshit again. That is South East Asia.

Communist? Not in your fucking dreams. :evil:

The US' actions in Vietnam saved the fledging democracies in the region. If not for the Vietnam War, I'd be living under Cuba-like conditions. Malaysia would have been overthrown by the Malayan Communist Party, with or without the SAS.

Ahem... Moron.

That is all.

[Warspite]

The US' actions in Vietnam saved the fledging democracies in the region. If not for the Vietnam War, I'd be living under Cuba-like conditions. Malaysia would have been overthrown by the Malayan Communist Party, with or without the SAS.

What the...

The Malayan Emergency, as is normaly called, had nothing to do with Vietnam, it was a straight British affair, in fact, it happened before American involvement in Vietnam.
The SAS was only employed in anti-guerrilla actions, only a small part in the whole scheme of things.

The majors contributers for the defeat of the communists insurgents were the commissioners Sir Henry Gurney, Sir Harold Briggs (Military Commander) and Sir Gerald Templer (successor ro Sir Henry), the fact that communists were mainly chinese (possibly the whole organisation), instead of being malay, therefore not being wholy supported by the population, and finally, the ability of the local Government being able to support it's operations, due to the increase of tin and rubber prices by the Corean War.

Sir Henry Gurney mantained the law and public administrative authority, allways a potential problem in insurgency situations, since loss of civil rights or abuse of power will alienate the population, and contribute to the success of the insurgents.

Sir Harold Briggs employed a relocation program for the thousands of chinese dwellings throughout the country, efectively cutting the needed recruiment basis and logistical support for the insurgents, while at the same time employing inteligence gathering and phsycological warfare.

Sir Gerald Templer employed the known "winning through the hearts and minds" strategy, showing that the Government was winning the war, protected the population, and integrating the chinese into the society, basicaly showing that there was order and stability, exactly what the insurgents where trying to destroy.

Finally, the '55 elections put the final nail in the coffin of the Communist Party, the Alliance Party won by a grandslam, putting in action the independece process.

[salm]

You've all heard Bush say that we must introduce democracy to Iraq so it will cause a domino effect throughout the Middle East, blah, blah, blah. This reminds me a bit of the Western empires of the last 400 years that called for the "civilizing" of the natives of the New World in order to "enlighten them". And we know from history that these empires did more damage to the natives than they intended. I think we're looking at a repeat of history here.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

Can you defend your statement that the Western Empires did damage to the regions they conquered? Can you provide proof that any area of the world colonized by a western power would have had the equivlants or superiours to western technology, nominal or effective western legal and democratic organizational concepts, or (In the case of many regions) a state organization at all?

well, you know, it might not be about technology advances only. would you like the usa to be invaded by some technological advance alien species who then move in their people colonize the land, treat the americans like shit, give them some of their technologies, then pull out again and leave a nation behind which has forgotten how to govern itself because there always were some technological advanced fucktards around who governed the usa for the americans?
oh, yes, you might have the capability of building a ray gun now. how nice now the riots which cant be controlled are even more fun.
*ZAP*