Slapping our Allies

[cpwill]

as usual, the Hammer nails it. the "reset" in Obama's foreign policy (outside of important portions of the WoT) has largely consisted of abusing our allies and prostrating before our foes. well done, sir.

What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama’s America?

If you’re a Brit, your head is spinning. It’s not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown — the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama’s returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama’s sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

...And then there was Hillary Clinton’s astonishing, nearly unreported (in the U.S.) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.

...In 1982, Argentina’s military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.

Since then, neither Thatcher nor her successors have countenanced negotiations. Britain doesn’t covet foreign dominion and has no shortage of sheep. But it does believe in self-determination, and will negotiate nothing until and unless the Falkland Islanders indicate their desire to be ruled by a chronically unstable, endemically corrupt polity with a rich history of dictatorship, economic mismanagement, and occasional political lunacy (see: the Evita cult).

Not surprisingly, the Falkland Islanders have given no such indication. Yet inexplicably, Clinton sought to reopen a question that had been settled for almost 30 years, not just pointlessly stirring the embers but even taking the Argentine side (re: negotiations) against Britain — a nation that has fought and bled with us for the last decade and that today has about 10,000 troops, far more than any other ally, fighting alongside America in Afghanistan.

...Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region (common language, common heritage, common democracy, common jihadist enemy). Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.

Poland and the Czech Republic have their legs cut out from under them when Obama unilaterally revokes a missile-defense agreement, acquiescing to pressure from Russia with its dreams of regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.

The Hondurans still can’t figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chávez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society — its congress, supreme court, church, and army — that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their own constitution.

...How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians, and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle, or mere carelessness.

 

[cpwill]

and who was it that told me that Hillary Clinton was a brilliant Secretary of State? with a straight face, as though it were a serious thought that deserved consideration?

Hillary Clinton, America’s secretary of state, was in Canada last week. She criticized Ottawa for not inviting aboriginal groups to a meeting on the Arctic, and for not including the facilitation of abortion in the Canadian government’s “maternal health” initiative to developing countries. These might seem curious priorities for the global superpower at a time of war, but, with such a full plate over at the State Department, it’s no wonder that peripheral matters like Iranian nuclear deadlines seem to fall by the wayside.

Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada, took U.S. criticisms in his stride. “Whether it comes to our role in Afghanistan, our sovereignty over our Arctic, or ultimately our foreign aid priorities, it is Canada and Canadians who will make Canadian decisions,” he said. Judging from the chill in the room at his and the secretary of state’s joint photo-op, the Canadian Arctic now extends pretty much to the U.S. border.

...There is much speculation on the “root cause” of presidential antipathy to America’s formerly closest ally. It is said his grandfather was ill treated by the authorities in colonial Kenya in the 1940s, which seems as good a basis as any on which to reorder 21st century bilateral relations, or at any rate as good as the proportion of the Canadian overseas-aid budget devoted to abortion promotion. But I doubt insensitive British policing two-thirds of a century ago weighs that heavy on the president. After all, his brother back in Kenya lives on twelve bucks a year, and that doesn’t seem to bother him, so it’s hard to see why ancient slights to his grandfather would — except insofar as they confirm the general biases of his collegiate-Left worldview.

...Fascinating as these psychological speculations are, we may be overthinking the situation. It’s not just the president. The entire administration suffers, to put it at its mildest, from systemic indifference to American allies. It wasn’t Obama but a mere aide who sneered to Fleet Street reporters that Britain was merely one of 200 countries in the world and shouldn’t expect any better treatment than any of the others. It wasn’t Obama but the State Department that leaked Hillary Clinton’s dressing down of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Ally-belittling comes so reflexively to this administration that it’s now doing drive-by bird-flipping. I doubt Secretary Clinton intended to change American policy when she was down in Argentina the other day and out of the blue demanded negotiations on the Falkland Islands. I would imagine she is entirely ignorant and indifferent on the subject, and calling for negotiations seemed the easy option — works for Iran and North Korea, right?

...I forget which long-ago foreign minister responded to an invitation to lunch with an adversary by saying “I’m not hungry,” but Obama seems to reserve the line for his “friends.” Visiting France, he declined to dine with the Sarkozys. Visiting Norway, he declined to dine with the king at a banquet thrown explicitly in Obama’s honor. The other day, the president declined to dine with Netanyahu even though the Israeli prime minister was his guest in the White House at the time. The British prime minister, five times rebuffed in his attempt to book a date, had to make do with a perfunctory walk ’n’ talk through the kitchens of the U.N. Obama’s shtick as a candidate was that he was the guy who’d talk to anyone, anytime, anywhere. Instead, he recoils from all but the most minimal contact with the world.

John Bolton calls him “the first post-American president” and is punctilious enough to add that he doesn’t mean “un-American” or “anti-American.” In his Berlin speech, he presented himself as a “citizen of the world,” which, whatever else it means, suggests an indifference to America’s role as guarantor of the global order. The postponement of his Australian trip in order to ram health care down the throats of the American people was a neat distillation of the reality of his priorities: A transformative domestic agenda must necessarily come at the price of America’s global role. One-worldism is often a convenient cover for ignorance: You’d be hard pressed to find a self-proclaimed “multiculturalist” who can tell you the capital of Lesotho or the principal exports of Bhutan. And so it is with liberal internationalism: The citoyen du monde is the most parochial president of modern times.

 

[The_Penguin]

as usual, the Hammer nails it. the "reset" in Obama's foreign policy (outside of important portions of the WoT) has largely consisted of abusing our allies and prostrating before our foes. well done, sir.

What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama’s America?

If you’re a Brit, your head is spinning. It’s not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown — the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama’s returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama’s sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

...And then there was Hillary Clinton’s astonishing, nearly unreported (in the U.S.) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.

...In 1982, Argentina’s military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.

Since then, neither Thatcher nor her successors have countenanced negotiations. Britain doesn’t covet foreign dominion and has no shortage of sheep. But it does believe in self-determination, and will negotiate nothing until and unless the Falkland Islanders indicate their desire to be ruled by a chronically unstable, endemically corrupt polity with a rich history of dictatorship, economic mismanagement, and occasional political lunacy (see: the Evita cult).

Not surprisingly, the Falkland Islanders have given no such indication. Yet inexplicably, Clinton sought to reopen a question that had been settled for almost 30 years, not just pointlessly stirring the embers but even taking the Argentine side (re: negotiations) against Britain — a nation that has fought and bled with us for the last decade and that today has about 10,000 troops, far more than any other ally, fighting alongside America in Afghanistan.

...Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region (common language, common heritage, common democracy, common jihadist enemy). Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions.

Poland and the Czech Republic have their legs cut out from under them when Obama unilaterally revokes a missile-defense agreement, acquiescing to pressure from Russia with its dreams of regional hegemony over Eastern Europe.

The Hondurans still can’t figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chávez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society — its congress, supreme court, church, and army — that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their own constitution.

...How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians, and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle, or mere carelessness.

Clearly you want endless war and to kill brown babies . Why won't you see that Ahmadinejadaowieiwonau20990@@09www is actually our friend. Israel with their superior weapons are clearly the problem. Hello cpwill, "proportional response" much? If our opponents go in with AKs and RPGs and we roll in with drones and superior air-power, we're in the wrong. Why we should have muskets and sharp knives (actually, on second thought, dull the knives, someone can be hurt by it.)

:2razz:

 

[Dutch]

In regards to europe.....I almost don't care. Europe has been a complete letdown in the ally department for quite some time now. Their anti-americanism and near complete lack of cooperation, outside of britain, in afghanistan is breathtaking.

Now, as to obama's foreign policy, all I can say is this administration's naivete' is mindnumbing. Of course, we have elected a president singularly unprepared for the office by either experience or natural inclination. Could we have expected anything different?

 

[cpwill]

Clearly you want endless war and to kill brown babies . Why won't you see that Ahmadinejadaowieiwonau20990@@09www is actually our friend. Israel with their superior weapons are clearly the problem. Hello cpwill, "proportional response" much? If our opponents go in with AKs and RPGs and we roll in with drones and superior air-power, we're in the wrong. Why we should have muskets and sharp knives (actually, on second thought, dull the knives, someone can be hurt by it.)

:2razz:

remember penguin; only a racist could think that brown people could have democracy, too.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

remember penguin; only a racist could think that brown people could have democracy, too.

Only a racist would feel that you have to impose it on them. That they cant get it on their own

Only a racist would ignore that brown people have had democracies before, only to have to taken away by coups sponsered by the US government

 

[Manc Skipper]

Only a racist would feel that you have to impose it on them. That they cant get it on their own

Only a racist would ignore that brown people have had democracies before, only to have to taken away by coups sponsered by the US government

That's the white man's burden LT. Those brown people will be civilised whether they want it or not! :roll:

 

[cpwill]

Only a racist would feel that you have to impose it on them. That they cant get it on their own

eventually and at a much higher price perhaps. but only someone ignorant of recent history would feel that the current governments in Iraq or Afghanistan were imposed; those constitutions were created by the people of those nations for those nations.

before the arrival of the British, India was a subcontinent at war with itself; it's people lived in a rigid caste system that mass-murdered women and was little better than slavery for a hefty percentage of it's people. only a fool would see them developing into the worlds' largest democracy today without the British.

Only a racist would ignore that brown people have had democracies before, only to have to taken away by coups sponsered by the US government

only a fool would argue that having made mistakes in the past means you shouldn't do the right thing in the present.

i note in passing that only someone with no knowledge of recent history would fail to note that the same people who level that charge against the US are equally willing to accuse us of supporting dictators when we don't aid the overthrow of such regimes and it's replacement with democracy. seems you can't win for losing with some people.

 

[cpwill]

That's the white man's burden LT.

not the white mans'. the free mans.


anywho, not to divert from the OP; but of our allies LT we have now picked meaningless and stupid fights with Israel, Britain, and Canada. In the middle east our enemies are confident and jubilant, and with regards to ALBA, China, and the rest we are at best ambivalent and at worst tacitly accepting. which of these moves do you support? how is "smart power" working out with our allies?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

eventually and at a much higher price perhaps. but only someone ignorant of recent history would feel that the current governments in Iraq or Afghanistan were imposed; those constitutions were created by the people of those nations for those nations.

before the arrival of the British, India was a subcontinent at war with itself; it's people lived in a rigid caste system that mass-murdered women and was little better than slavery for a hefty percentage of it's people. only a fool would see them developing into the worlds' largest democracy today without the British.

I remember when another person suggested one of the good things that Britain did for India was develop the railroad system. Like Indians could not develop a railroad system, they are what to stupid to understand engineering.

People who feel these cultures could not or will not develop without Waspish guidance are racist

Only a racist would feel that way. The british dont forget had a rigid caste system that murdered millions of people not just women or childer. It sent its own childern (of the lower caste poor to work in virtual slavery in Canada and Australia, it was the worlds biggest drug pushing country for a while (opium wars) It allowed the Irish to starve as a people when it was under its direct control.

It also had actual slaves for a long period of time

only a fool would argue that having made mistakes in the past means you shouldn't do the right thing in the present.

i note in passing that only someone with no knowledge of recent history would fail to note that the same people who level that charge against the US are equally willing to accuse us of supporting dictators when we don't aid the overthrow of such regimes and it's replacement with democracy. seems you can't win for losing with some people.

I point outed out the hypocrisy in invading countries to bring them "democracy" while at the same time supporting brutal dictatorships. That perhaps it would be better to stop the support of the brutal dictatorships so that democracy has a chance to develop

Like in South Korea when the US finally stopped propping up the military dictatorshipsl where a democracy was finally able to survive, or in the Phillipines when the dictatorship no longer had direct support and the people were able to get rid of the dictatorship and form a democracy. The US did not create those democracies the people did, the US generally actively supressed them

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

not the white mans'. the free mans.


anywho, not to divert from the OP; but of our allies LT we have now picked meaningless and stupid fights with Israel, Britain, and Canada. In the middle east our enemies are confident and jubilant, and with regards to ALBA, China, and the rest we are at best ambivalent and at worst tacitly accepting. which of these moves do you support? how is "smart power" working out with our allies?

No fight was picked with Canada

The Obama admin had an opinion regarding Canada in Afghanistan and expressed it in reasonable fashion. It also had an opinion regarding reproductive right and expressed it reasonably

The artic issue is one that the US was trying to expand the countries involved, rather then keeping out Sweden Finland and Iceland

In Israel the US is trying to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people. Perhaps a full scale invasion of Israel/West bank is in order to free the Palestinians

 

[PeteEU]

The Hondurans still can’t figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chávez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society — its congress, supreme court, church, and army — that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their own constitution.

Funny how there was not a peep from the US right when Uribe of Colombia tried to do exactly the same thing..... And funny how the US right always seems to support coup's when it happens against a non conservative... hypocrites.

 

[Andalublue]

In regards to europe.....I almost don't care. Europe has been a complete letdown in the ally department for quite some time now. Their anti-americanism and near complete lack of cooperation, outside of britain, in afghanistan is breathtaking.

You could at least have the decency to check your facts before bad-mouthing your allies. Currently in Afghanistan there are 50,000 US troops, 30,000 EU troops, 9,500 of those British. How do you define 'near complete lack of cooperation'?

Why do we read so much baby-whingeing on DP about how Europe doesn't love the US? How about bitching about the people who really wish you harm and wouldn't p**s on you if you were on fire? Russia? China? Or your fair weather friends who only love you when you do exactly what they want you to do? Israel? Colombia? Georgia?

Ever thought there might be a correlation between the amount of bitch-slapping you do to your allies and the increasing reluctance of them to automatically support your FP initiatives?

 

[Dutch]

You could at least have the decency to check your facts before bad-mouthing your allies. Currently in Afghanistan there are 50,000 US troops, 30,000 EU troops, 9,500 of those British. How do you define 'near complete lack of cooperation'?

I have. The problems aren't just the numbers but the where and how they are allowed to be used. Most, outside the british, canadians, and dutch aren't combat troops.


source

......The 43,800 troops from the U.S. and U.K. comprise more than 60 percent of the total ISAF contingent. By year's end, the U.S. will have 68,000 troops deployed, operating either under ISAF command or as part of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom.[16] The additional 30,000 troops announced by President Obama will further increase the American military footprint in Afghanistan as they steadily insert into theater through 2010.

In contrast, the "big four" Continental powers-- France, Germany, Italy, and Spain--provide just 11,255 troops combined. Excluding the U.K., the remaining 20 NATO-EU members provide 20,083 troops.

Troop Losses. The location tends to determine the nature of a nation's deployment. For example, British, Canadian, and Dutch troops in Helmand and Kandahar have faced some of the fiercest fighting of the entire campaign, while German troops in the northern provinces undertake a largely peacekeeping role. This is reflected in the wildly uneven troop losses among the ISAF nations.

The U.K. has lost more men--235 soldiers killed, almost exclusively in Helmand--than all other NATO-EU members combined. In comparison, 210 Czech, Danish, Estonian, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish servicemen have died in Afghanistan. In Helmand and Kandahar alone, 547 troops have died, primarily British (209), Americans (194), Canadians (104), and Danes (24).[17] (See Table 1.).....

Why do we read so much baby-whingeing on DP about how Europe doesn't love the US? How about bitching about the people who really wish you harm and wouldn't p**s on you if you were on fire? Russia? China? Or your fair weather friends who only love you when you do exactly what they want you to do? Israel? Colombia? Georgia?

Oh, I really don't care. Europe is the creater and center of the universe when it comes to anti-americanism.

Ever thought there might be a correlation between the amount of bitch-slapping you do to your allies and the increasing reluctance of them to automatically support your FP initiatives?

The irony here is american liberals actually thought europe would step up if we dumped bush. Europeans thought things would be different with america once we adopted a liberal to lead this country. Apparently the joke's on both of you. :mrgreen:

 

[Andalublue]

I have. The problems aren't just the numbers but the where and how they are allowed to be used. Most, outside the british, canadians, and dutch aren't combat troops.

I see, and combat troops are the only ones that count, right?

source

Hmmm, Heritage Foundation. Good, objective source there.

Oh, I really don't care. Europe is the creater and center of the universe when it comes to anti-americanism.

You might like to check out what the Russians, Iranians and Venezuelans think about the US too. I think the European attitude to the US will seem like fellatio in comparison.

The irony here is american liberals actually thought europe would step up if we dumped bush. Europeans thought things would be different with america once we adopted a liberal to lead this country. Apparently the joke's on both of you. :mrgreen:

What do you want the Europeans to step up to? Seems clear they're doing as much in Afghanistan as anyone could wish. As far as Obama's attitude is concerned, he seems to have his work cut out at home rather than expending vast amounts of time wooing Europe. There's still a ground-swell of good will for him over here. I don't know whether he will leave office beloved by Europeans as Bill Clinton did, but time will tell.

 

[Dutch]

I see, and combat troops are the only ones that count, right?

That would be what obama and the british have asked for.

Hmmm, Heritage Foundation. Good, objective source there.

Do you doubt the figures?

You might like to check out what the Russians, Iranians and Venezuelans think about the US too. I think the European attitude to the US will seem like fellatio in comparison.

I'm aware of what they are. I'm also aware they are not part of nato.

What do you want the Europeans to step up to? Seems clear they're doing as much in Afghanistan as anyone could wish. As far as Obama's attitude is concerned, he seems to have his work cut out at home rather than expending vast amounts of time wooing Europe. There's still a ground-swell of good will for him over here. I don't know whether he will leave office beloved by Europeans as Bill Clinton did, but time will tell.

Obama and the american liberals/leftists expected nato treaty obligations to be upheld with larger numbers of combat troops in afghanistan and no, you cannot have too many combat troops in a combat situation. As for european "good will" that's actually not worth much if what you need is combat troops. As for myself, I never really expected much more than what I'm seeing. As for Obama's "belovedness" or lack therof in europe I really don't care as it's his standing with the american people that interests me.

 

[cpwill]

Only a racist would feel that way. The british dont forget had a rigid caste system that murdered millions of people not just women or childer. It sent its own childern (of the lower caste poor to work in virtual slavery in Canada and Australia, it was the worlds biggest drug pushing country for a while (opium wars) It allowed the Irish to starve as a people when it was under its direct control.

It also had actual slaves for a long period of time

:shrug: as has every single culture on the face of the planet. in fact, slavery was a constant of human existance..... until the British decided to voluntarily get rid of her institution of slavery and then put her young men in danger to risk her fortune and blood overseas stamping out the international trade.

britain was not perfect, britian was better; and (critically to this discussion); they had that Liberal, representative ideal of government. I continue to await your evidence that India would have naturally progressed by the end of the 20th century into a democracy without the British history there.

I point outed out the hypocrisy in invading countries to bring them "democracy" while at the same time supporting brutal dictatorships.

not at all; it's merely a matter of pragmatism. you can't invade every evil dictatorship in the world; and some can be brought down or changed in favor of human rights and free government with methods short of invasion. in the meantime, sometimes you have to ally with Stalin if you want to beat Hitler.

That perhaps it would be better to stop the support of the brutal dictatorships so that democracy has a chance to develop

well, to use the example above, how do you think WWII would have gone had not the USSR stayed in the fight (which it did thanks largely to US aid?)? Think it would have been better, or worse?


and (as per the OP) i'm still waiting on you to explain the hidden brilliance in all these examples of "smart power"

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

:shrug: as has every single culture on the face of the planet. in fact, slavery was a constant of human existance..... until the British decided to voluntarily get rid of her institution of slavery and then put her young men in danger to risk her fortune and blood overseas stamping out the international trade.

britain was not perfect, britian was better; and (critically to this discussion); they had that Liberal, representative ideal of government. I continue to await your evidence that India would have naturally progressed by the end of the 20th century into a democracy without the British history there.

India in the 1700's had around the 3 rd largest economy in t,he world, an advanced culture that created the Taj Mahal. The UK did not send its young men out in stamping out the international trade of slavery. It did not end slavery in the US, or in most parts of Africa that it controlled. It ended it in the UK. It did create the conditions that caused the Irish to starve during the potato famine, it ruled India during plenty of famines where millions died, it forced China to accept allow the trade of opium

As for India becoming a democracy, how many European countries were democracies in the 1800s. Who in 1950 would have thought the Polish would be a democracy in 2010. And why would the poles of the 1800's a backward european nation would ever evolve to form a democracy by the late 1900s while India would not, or Japan for that reason. It is pure racism to expect that European nations would evolve to form democracies as they have while India, or China ( which will at some point) would not. As shown by events in the USSR things change over time. India over time would have had cultural exchanges with other countries and have its own culture change in that time. It is not like democracy was a british invention after all. The ancient greeks had it and other ancient cultures had their own versions of it

Until the end of the last century, the only indication that this might not always have been the case came from Greek and Roman accounts of India, mostly histories of India during and just after Alexander the Great's invasion of India in 327-324 B.C. These works spoke of numerous cities and even larger areas being governed as oligarchies and democracies, but they were not always believed by scholars.6 Yet research into the Buddhist Pali Canon during the nineteenth century confirmed this picture of widespread republicanism. The Pali Canon is the earliest version of the Buddhist scriptures, and reached its final form between 400-300 B.C.7 It contains the story of Buddha's life and teaching and his rules for monastic communities. The rules and teachings are presented in the form of anecdotes, explaining the circumstances that called forth the Buddha's authoritative pronouncement. Thus the Pali Canon provides us with many details of life in ancient India, and specifically of the sixth century (the Buddha's lifetime) in the northeast. In 1903, T.W. Rhys Davids, the leading Pali scholar, pointed out in his book Buddhist India8 that the Canon (and the Jatakas, a series of Buddhist legends set in the same period but composed much later) depicted a country in which there were many clans, dominating extensive and populous territories, who made their public decisions in assemblies, moots, or parliaments.

Rhys Davids' observation was not made in a vacuum. Throughout the nineteenth century, students of local government in India (many of them British bureaucrats) had been fascinated by popular elements in village life.9 The analysis of village government was part of a continuous debate on the goals and methods of imperial policy, and the future of India as a self-governing country. Rhys-Davids' book made the ancient institutions of India relevant to this debate. His reconstruction of a republican past for India was taken up by nationalistic Indian scholars of the 1910s.10 Later generations of Indian scholars have been somewhat embarrassed by the enthusiasm of their elders for early republics and have sought to treat the republics in a more balanced and dispassionate manner.11 Nevertheless, their work, like that of the pioneering nationalists, has been extremely productive. Not only the classical sources and the Pali Canon, but also Buddhist works in Sanskrit, Panini's Sanskrit grammar (the Astadhyayi ), the Mahabharata, the Jaina Canon, and even Kautilya's Arthasastra have been combed for evidence and insights. Coins and inscriptions have documented the existence of republics and the workings of popular assemblies.

Democracy in Ancient India. Which means that just as the ancient greeks had some form of democracy, so did the ancient Indians, just as the greeks eventually formed another democracy, later then the Indians mind you, so could the Indians have formed another democracy

not at all; it's merely a matter of pragmatism. you can't invade every evil dictatorship in the world; and some can be brought down or changed in favor of human rights and free government with methods short of invasion. in the meantime, sometimes you have to ally with Stalin if you want to beat Hitler.

well, to use the example above, how do you think WWII would have gone had not the USSR stayed in the fight (which it did thanks largely to US aid?)? Think it would have been better, or worse?


and (as per the OP) i'm still waiting on you to explain the hidden brilliance in all these examples of "smart power"

Unlike you I dont view the US spread of democracy in Iraq as the intention or the goal, I view the US invasion in a pragmatic way. As a means to further US control on the worlds energy suppy. The US public would not have accepted that as a reason to go to war, or to maintain the presence of US soldiers in Iraq for this long under that reason. In much the same way as the invasion of the Phillipines in 1899 was promoted to bring civilization to the phillinos rather then it's colonization.

 

[OrlandoGringo]

Funny how there was not a peep from the US right when Uribe of Colombia tried to do exactly the same thing..... And funny how the US right always seems to support coup's when it happens against a non conservative... hypocrites.

Pete, what was it exactly that Uribe tried to do?

 

[OrlandoGringo]

In Israel the US is trying to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people. Perhaps a full scale invasion of Israel/West bank is in order to free the Palestinians

Oh yes, those pacifist, peace-loving Palestinians would be model world citizens if only Israel would get out of the way. :roll:

 

[OrlandoGringo]

I point outed out the hypocrisy in invading countries to bring them "democracy" while at the same time supporting brutal dictatorships. That perhaps it would be better to stop the support of the brutal dictatorships so that democracy has a chance to develop

Are you talking about 1950's CIA activities or U.S. actions within the past decade?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Oh yes, those pacifist, peace-loving Palestinians would be model world citizens if only Israel would get out of the way. :roll:

Try reading the post again, and try to understand the intent of that particular section of it

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Are you talking about 1950's CIA activities or U.S. actions within the past decade?

Both

The 50-00's had the US overthrow democratic states

And the US has not stopped supporting brutal dictatorships from the 50's (or before even) to now

 

[OrlandoGringo]

Both

The 50-00's had the US overthrow democratic states

And the US has not stopped supporting brutal dictatorships from the 50's (or before even) to now

Yea? Who comes to mind?

 

[Dutch]

Both

The 50-00's had the US overthrow democratic states

And the US has not stopped supporting brutal dictatorships from the 50's (or before even) to now

You are aware we were involved in the cold war aren't you? You are aware we are no longer involved in the cold war aren't you? LT, hellooo, wakeup. We've moved beyond that point now. We actually set up a form of democracy in iraq, not a client state.