[OneHope]

History is useful because it helps us to learn from our past mistakes and failures.

My Classical Studies prof brought up an interesting correlation between an event 2500 years ago and what George Bush is doing now.

In the 400's BC, after the Persian War, the Greek city of Athens entered into an alliance with most of the other city states in the Aegean. After a while Athens came to be the head of this alliance and started exacting tribute from the city-states. Eventually Athens became an empire. They then started taking over the other city states and forcing them to become democratic instead of oligarchic. A lot of city states came to resent this and eventually the Pelopponesian War broke out and ultimately Athens was defeated.

Now looking at today; the United States becomes an empire; the United States then begins to 'take over' other countries and force 'freedom' and 'democracy' on them. Also, its interesting to read a lot of speeches from ca. 450BC and see how similar they are to the ones that Bush is making.


Anyways, those are just some thoughts (I'm not Bush bashing or anything like that)

[Jay42]

That is interesting. As I understand it, the people of Athens were the first EVAH democracy. It sounds like your prof is saying the people of America will be the last.

Only thing is, in four years they'll bring a democrat in and it'll change again.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by Jay42

That is interesting. As I understand it, the people of Athens were the first EVAH democracy. It sounds like your prof is saying the people of America will be the last.

Only thing is, in four years they'll bring a democrat in and it'll change again.

I'm not really sure if he's implying that because to say that the two situations are identical is a little far-fetched. He was just pointing out the similarities.

After the war though, Athens went back and forth between oligarchy and democracy until the time of Alex the Great.

[texandawg1288]

Originally Posted by OneHope

Now looking at today; the United States becomes an empire; the United States then begins to 'take over' other countries and force 'freedom' and 'democracy' on them. Also, its interesting to read a lot of speeches from ca. 450BC and see how similar they are to the ones that Bush is making.


Anyways, those are just some thoughts (I'm not Bush bashing or anything like that)

If I am correct, I think the people of Iraq wanted freedom. It is just the leaders that didn't want it, well and the followers.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by texandawg1288

If I am correct, I think the people of Iraq wanted freedom. It is just the leaders that didn't want it, well and the followers.

Not the point, the Americans forced democracy on them whether they liked it or not. It just so happens that a lot of the Iraqi's wanted democracy. Also, democracy =/= freedom.

[DreamChaser]

Heya,

Democracy generally offers a heck of a lot more freedom than dictatorship.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Heya,

Democracy generally offers a heck of a lot more freedom than dictatorship.

True, but I don't think its so clean cut. For example, in the past two American elections and the last Canadian one there were allegations of buying votes and I have read that in Canadian parliament, when the PM does not want a vote to go a certain way, he'll put pressure on his party to vote his way or not vote at all. If these allegations are true (which they probably are; another thread another time) then is democracy really freedom? Also, there are more options than just democracy and dictatorship. Hey, in theory I think that communism is the best and most Christian way of government; but it is so hard to make true communism work .

Maybe this would make a good discussion; what is the ideal of freedom?

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by OneHope

If these allegations are true (which they probably are; another thread another time) then is democracy really freedom?

I think I have to agree with OneHope here, you get to the point where you need to look from more of a sociological perspective than a historical in the sense that even though a democracy may ideally support freedom, as human beings we'll still do our best to screw it up and get more powerful/more rich/more whatever.

Maybe this would make a good discussion; what is the ideal of freedom?

John Locke wrote "Life, Liberty, and Property"... maybe in my view it is the application of government to protect these three virtues.

[thesteve]

if the united states hasn't expanded its borders in the last 50 years is it really an empire?

[rockin4theking]

Hasn't expanded its physical borders perhaps; but it's arguable that it has drastically increased its ability to influence events around the world as it sees fit.

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by thesteve

if the united states hasn't expanded its borders in the last 50 years is it really an empire?

It is an economic empire which in todays world makes it an empire in the same respects that military conquest made the empires of the past. Basically, the US has the power to destroy the whole world both literally and economically.

Originally Posted by jfahler03

John Locke wrote "Life, Liberty, and Property"... maybe in my view it is the application of government to protect these three virtues.

I'm not trying to play games here, but was does liberty mean. Also, if this is the idea of freedom (which I think its a good one) then you don't actually need a democracy to be free. I would be completely satisfied with a dictator if he protected my life, liberty and property.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by thesteve

if the united states hasn't expanded its borders in the last 50 years is it really an empire?

Although we shy away from being called an empire (in view of the British Empire, namely... an attitude that goes to 1776 as we know), I'll say that if the definition of an Empire relates to having territorial and ideological investments around the globe in support of national economy and interest... I say we do. While the last 50 years may have not seen the growth of this "empire", our presence in every continent (and in many cases a military presense that is continuing) confirms that it is an issue that cannot be ignored. Interesting how a traditionally "isolationist" nation has stakes around the world...Japan, Germany, the Phillipines, until recently Panama, the Mid-East, Southeastern Europe... while these seem like archaic and old establishments (in other words over 60 years old), how would our view of...say Britain be if they still had an airbase or naval base in say...Virginia?

Just some thoughts... I'm not saying we need to pull out of those nations (for example I see pulling out of Panama as somewhat of a mistake), etc., but the fact is that even if we do not define ourselves as an empire, many of the world's population do. While this may be meaningless to us cowboy-Americans, it can't be considered meaningless in foreign relations.

[jfahler03]

Originally Posted by OneHope

I'm not trying to play games here, but was does liberty mean. Also, if this is the idea of freedom (which I think its a good one) then you don't actually need a democracy to be free. I would be completely satisfied with a dictator if he protected my life, liberty and property.

Liberty can be defined as the sustainment of individual human rights relating to personal issues. This expands to include how personal liberties find themselves in relation to the state... i.e. political affiliation and the liberties we have in judging with who we are affiliated with (like us devilish Democrats)...

In relation to a dictatorial nation protecting these three virtues, I cannot agree because the role of the government is to protect and uphold Locke's ideals. The minute that a government is dictatorial it may be (or simply appear to be) protecting the three virtues however to what accountability does a dictator hold to keep from being a tyrant?

[OneHope]

Originally Posted by jfahler03

In relation to a dictatorial nation protecting these three virtues, I cannot agree because the role of the government is to protect and uphold Locke's ideals. The minute that a government is dictatorial it may be (or simply appear to be) protecting the three virtues however to what accountability does a dictator hold to keep from being a tyrant?

yeah, I guess everything works in theory. Until the great and glorious day where God is our dictator.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by DreamChaser

Heya,

Democracy generally offers a heck of a lot more freedom than dictatorship.

Does this mean you'll eat your words when the religiously conservative Shi'ite leader they elect turns Iraq into a dictatorship again?