Has there been any country in which the US has intervened to bring about a democracy where there was none before, or will Iraq be the first? (I mean, of course, on her own; removing Hitler doesn't count !)

If she has, what happened to the other(s) ?

Well Fred, not real sure why Hitler doesn't count but ones that come immediately to mind are Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea (more or less). I guess the question could be posed as "who in the world has ever intervened somewhere to produce a democracy?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Has there been any country in which the US has intervened to bring about a democracy where there was none before, or will Iraq be the first? (I mean, of course, on her own; removing Hitler doesn't count !)

If she has, what happened to the other(s) ?

---

I'm trying to think of examples, and the best ones seem to be the countries that we separated from the Spanish empire in 1898 -- Particularly Cuba and the Phillipines. We weren't particularly trying to make them into democratic countries, and we didn't bother ourselves much about how democratic they were, as long as they were amenable to satisfying the needs of major US businesses.

I suppose a case could be made for the introduction of democracy to territories removed from Mexico in 1848, but I don't think you were referring to actual territorial aquisition.

Kwll suggested South Korea, but we were only there to stop communisim. Any democracy they may have derived from the result was purely coincidental. The US would have been perfectly happy with a dictatorship there, as long as it was an anti-communist one, as they were in Taiwan.

Alan Moore

Hitler wasn't overthrown by the United States alone, Kwil ( What on Earth do they teach as history over there; John Wayne films ? )

I wasn't looking to World Wars. Had I been I'd have said 1) Japan was a democracy until the military took over in the late 1930's rather as Germany had been 2) Korea and Formosa ( Taiwan now) were her colonies from way back, some 50 years to 1945.

My question is answered by Alan; thanks.

If you like Kwil, since you ask, every single country in the British Empire was left independent with full democracy. Some had democracy for their own internal self-rule from almost their very first days of British ownership : Canada,Australia, New Zealand,South Africa. So much was this so that New Zealand's women got the vote years before British ones did .

Even that self-government was extended later. New Zealand was able (under a law of 1931) to declare war on Germany before Britain did ( because of the time difference; it wasn't unexpected )

Not sure how the colonies that later called themselves "The United States Of", or something or other like that, fitted into all this .

quote:

---

Originally posted by FredPuli:

If you like Kwil, since you ask, every single country in the British Empire was left independent with full democracy. Some had democracy for their own internal self-rule from almost their very first days of British ownership : Canada,Australia, New Zealand,South Africa. So much was this so that New Zealand's women got the vote years before British ones did .

Even that self-government was extended later. New Zealand was able (under a law of 1931) to declare war on Germany before Britain did ( because of the time difference; it wasn't unexpected )

Not sure how the colonies that later called themselves "The United States Of", or something or other like that, fitted into all this .

---

Fred, by jingo, I usually agree with things you post, but this post really irked me. You act as though the British Empire were something to be proud of, and as though those democracies came about because of the benevolence of Her Majesty. Look, if you're going to pat your own nation on the back for Imperialism, give us some credit for stopping communism in a few places.

I beg to differ that the colonies were left in great democratic shape. (What do they use to teach you history over there? Mr. Bean movies?? ) Which democracies are you taking credit for? Pakistan? Nigeria? I guess you'd never take credit for Israel, although you certainly deserve a good portion of the credit.

Nations throughout Africa, the Middle East and SE Asia were created by imperialism were then left to deal with quite an "independent" mess. Yes, there were some successes, but I think it is interesting that the ones you are most proud of, the ones who were given the most autonomy, also happened to be ruled by white people. In other words, Britian stole land from indigenous people and gave it to her own people, or else took credit for the fact that other white people had already stolen the land. Either way, you didn't spread democracy in those cases - you just spread yourselves out. Yes, I fully admit that to some extent that includes my own country.

Anyway, if you believe that taking control of a large part of the globe and then leaving those nations years later as "democracies" counts as spreading democracy, then I guess the US would be best to take control of Iraq for a century or so. Gee, maybe we should just give the land to some Americans, call them Iraqis, and give ourselves a pat on the back for spreading democracy. Or perhaps we should leave it as is, but divide it up into a few countries, leaving a few disputed areas of land just to keep them busy during their first few decades of freedom.

Then could we be saints like you?

[This message was edited by Sarai on 11-16-03 at 09:29 PM.]

Sarai, calm down

I do not defend the British Empire or imperialism.
I was being mischievous with Kwil. If he's going to argue that way...

Sorry to cause you any anxiety or so much typing !

Well Fred , in such a case I guess you got my point that in world history it has been so seldom tried that the question of intent is a moot one. As far as Hitler, no we didn't do it alone, nor did I say we did. We did the Berlin Airlift alone though, which certainly helped in that direction plus post war stablization (granted with others). As far as S Korea, since this democratization has so infrequently been tried, hard to know what it is supposed to look like. Btw, wasn't Iraq one of those British "holdings" in the early part of the 20th Century?

"....and this, too, shall pass away."

Empires come and go. They care for nobody but themselves and what they do they do not for others but for their own advancement. The Romans, the British, the Americans. Whoever is next will do exactly the same. Such is the nature of men.

Kwil, Iraq? We were merely passing through; we just stopped by to see if we could keep the natives peaceful for everybody else's benefit, you know...that sort of thing... not for our own ( perish the thought ! ). We were probably invited in

Some fellow, Churchill, I think it was, suggested bombing them then with heavy bombers but I don't think it ever happened. Of course this was, what , 80 years back or more?

Strange how things turn out. Compare, please:

We were there certainly from 1914 ( calling it Mesopotamia for much of the time).In 1920 after a revolt was put down, we took the hint, and the existing British military rule was replaced by an Iraqi Council of State under British supervision. It lasted a year.

Thereafter the country was supposedly ruled by its king or regents but was in fact controlled by us; a fact acknowleged in 1927 when we signed a treaty with Iraq declaring Iraq's independence We stayed around though; it seems to have been seen by others as independent only from c 1932 and then of course WW2 started within a few years.

The place was never ours ; we merely had a mandate to run it

Does of that seem familiar?

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 11-17-03 at 01:37 PM.]

Yeah I hear you Fred, but the US type of interventionism does not come close to the type modeled like, say in India or sundry other places. There are distinct differences you know.

Quote by Kwll
"We did the Berlin Airlift alone though, which certainly helped in that direction plus post war stablization (granted with others)."

Excuse me, matey, but in the Berlin Airlift, the U.K. carried out 87,000 flights out of 278,000, and had 39 killed compared to 31 U.S. Once again, it seems the mighty U.S. did it alone!

Never mind Fourbrick. We ought to be used to this by now.

Give it a couple of years and we'll be getting Americans ( and Hollywood) telling us we weren't in Iraq either.

I've never understood how it is that the Americans don't say they won the Battle of Waterloo, myself ( of course we Europeans now know the Prussians did , or possibly the French did, but you know what I mean ))

OK guys but we don't get upset (at least not me) when all the slings are thrown at the US either because we stand apart right now. But the US did transport 75% of the stuff over there. So does having a token role in an operation mean it couldn't have been done without you? It's not lost on me that the US has only been the world power for a little over 60 years and it was Britain that ruled the waves for hundreds before that. But I never hear you guys complain about how the Hessians helped you lose the Revolution! (just having fun with you guys)