Skip to main content

The US role in spreading Democracy around the world

One of my readers takes me to task for my claim that Democracy is spreading around the world, on my post about Telesur and the growth of communism in the Southern Continent. Peter asked me to respond to a couple questions, which I gladly will.
Peter () wrote the following:
Democracy is spreading
You say that as if the United States actively supports democracy at home or abroad, but particularly in Latin America. If you believe that, I would appreciate if you would please answer the following questions:

1) Do you believe the United States should interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries, including funding opposition parties, terrorizing the civilian population (including the murder and maiming of innocent civilians), assassinating political leaders, and actively participating in coups, successful and otherwise?
First of all, it appears to me that this question is a smoke screen for blatant anti-American sentiment. I cannot comment on that which I do not have evidence, and I don't really like entertaining conspiracy theories. I'll take these one at a time.

As far as the United States terrorizing civilian populations, I am not sure what you are defining as "terrorizing." What the United States has done for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT what I call terrorizing.

You should look into what real terrorist do, and if you can't tell the difference between terrorist and the American service men and women, you are only a greater fool than I thought. There is no evidence of intentional, purposeful murdering or maiming of innocent civilians. When such cases have come out, those individuals have been fully prosecuted according to the law.

You have to ask yourself if these is such thing as good and evil in this world. Can you honestly say that Saddam was "good" for his country? Can you not see that removing his regime was an improvement for Iraq? Was it evil of us to remove Hitler from power? Do we not have a responsibility to stop evil when we see it? Do you even believe there is such thing as evil men in this world? So, in response to your questions, yes, I do believe the United States should make a stand before the entire world for justice, democracy and against evil. Sometimes that involved going to war, and sometimes that involves diplomacy.
2) Do you believe it is, in general, permissible/beneficial/etc. for a country to interfere with the domestic affairs of another country?
In general, no. I do not think it is beneficial for the United States to interfere with the domestic affairs of another country, with the important exception of saving innocent lives and protecting the weak. You see, this is what we have the United Nations for. This is why the US went into Afghanistan together with a world coalition, under a United Nations mandate. I also think it is beneficial to our national security and economic prosperity to share and spread the values and benefits of peaceful democracy. We can see this happening in the middle east, and it is my hope we will see more of true, strong and peaceful democracy in Latin America.

CAFTA was a good step forward in this. It will provide opportunities for Central American countries to provide better jobs and economic prosperity to their people. Corruption must still be eliminated. Crime and violence must be stopped. These are all real and serious problems for Central America. But, we are taking steps in the right direction. Chavez considers the values of democracy, free speech and the free press to be a threat to his regime. What is he afraid of? He claims the US is interfering with his domestic affairs. The righteous have nothing to fear, yet dictators like Chavez and Castro have everything to fear. They are paranoid, power-hungry liars who care nothing about their country's population.

That the United States spreads democracy, economic opportunity and the values of freedom does not constitute an interference in a country's domestic affairs. Allow me to remind you what values our great nation, The United States of America, was founded upon.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Governmentt, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
First, the rights we enjoy are not given by the United Nations, or the Federal government--they are endowed by the Creator. These are unalienable rights. Second, the government derives its power from the consent of the governed--the people. Ask the people of Cuba what THEY want for their government? Ask the people of Iraq if they wanted Saddam? Ask the women of Afghanistan if they want the Taliban back in power? Ask the people of Egypt if they would rather not have free elections? Democracy is spreading at the hands of the people.

Tag: , ,


Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

Podcast: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the discussion between Michel Martin, Stephen Henderson and myself on the GOP debate, and Bush's push for No Child Left Behind. The segment on the new gospel music competition reality show is a great segment -- check it out as well. Tell Me More, October 12, 2007 · This week, GOP presidential contenders met for a debate in Dearborn, Michigan. Meanwhile, President Bush was stumping for reauthorization of the education bill, "No Child Left Behind." In this week's Political Chat, hear insights from political blogger Josue Sierra and Stephen Henderson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor at the Detroit Free Press.

You can listen on the NPR website right here.

Related Posts:
- On Air: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind
- GOP Economy Debate

Other Posts of Interest:
- Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith Cross posted at: