Liberation of countries with oppressive regimes

This is, of course ridiculously simplistic, but from some eastern European sources I find that the people of the former CCCP are now largely preoccupied with their own version of the Mafia, 1980s rock music clones, and seeking overhyped consumer goods Levis, Nikes, etc., etc., ad infinitum at insane prices that they cannot afford!

It seems that (as libertyD comments) when that which has been denied for so long becomes suddenly available, judgment is the victim!

BoGoWo

I admit that there is a presupposition in my "line" of thinking. The briefly stated theory presupposes the identification of liberal democracy as the most appealing and the most acceptable one for people in the future who are more educated and civlized.

The reasons that might justify this presupposition are well taken in the book titled as On Liberty authored by John Stuart Mill. As he says, to exercise the power of making choice for oneself would help develop people's individuality. The preference of individuality by Mill is derived from a view to maximizing social utility. This is equated to saying that individuality makes the society better in terms of both economic and some other benefits. I am not going to talk about this in detail, which seems to make our disscussion unnecessarily complicated. What is self-evident, however, is that everybody has some basic rights, say liberty to living and freedom of speech, etc. Although some countries are compromising basic human rights for immediate economic interests, the long term goal is, however, to reverse this situation. Obviously, the ultimate goal is to set up some representative government and democratic institutions which might not ever and ever again go bankrupt due to impecuniousness-- Only a democratic government can guarantee the protection of basic human rights. for a more educated population, this is even more of the case.

And with respect to your reference to some other options, i'd say all these options that might be taken is no replacement to democracy. Rather, these favorable options have to be incorporated in democracy which serves as a framework to aggregate the world.

As Winston Churchill said (paraphrased):
Democracy is a lousy form of government; but, it's the best we've come accross so far!

As I've said before childhood involves being protected from the demands of the real world by a caring parent who allows the child to grow through controlled experience untill the child becomes able to cope with the vagaries of society.
Those who have not had the benefit of a successful nurturing are better living in a supported state untill they have the chance to grow into "responsible" citizenhood; rather than abandonned to the fray in hopes they will survive without issuing, or receiving harm.

The perfect government (which, obviously, does not exist) reflects this freedom vs nurturing balance; giving the able the freedom to pusue their goals, unfettered by unreasonable impediments, while providing the "less able" the safety net of social support to protect them from the strains applyed to the less "fit" in health or fortune.

BoGoWo,

your point is well taken. and i agree as well. but the problem remains about how to put it into practice in a world where every country tries to establish itself as unique, not being Americanized.

I have not read all of the replies on here. I reserve that for a time when I am not so stressed. But I want to say, the only way I support invading other nations to free the people is when the world's communities form an organization similar to the UN that will take an unbiased look at ALL the nations and then act to free the people to determine their own destinies. No sit on 'em and make 'em be like Americans, no take their resources while working the poor for $2 a day. True freedom, or no invasion.

Well if you knew your history you'd better understand, first let me catch you up to par.

There are several non-related factors at work here.

First is Freemasonry, USA was founded by and upon Masonic morality, and while Masonry has long been fairly abscent from the political stage, this morality or "ideal" still permeates most of the USA's motives.

Second is the UN. Which is inheirantly anti-American, France in particular, which stands to lose 60 billion dollars in Iraqi oil rights that Saddam would give them, however we're removing him now so good ridance to that deal.

Another is the Euro, which I've heard Saddam was considering to be the standard to choose for Iraq, this sort of spread of the Euro block would push the dollar into an inflationary collapse, and unless you'd like to be eating out of garbage cans (because today people are not as nice as they were in the 30s), then you best shut up about getting rid of Saddam.

These 3 unrelated factors could have easily merged to form the situation we see today.

USA taking an oportunity to spare herself and her true allies (Britain and Israel no other), from economic disaster and war, while still spreading enlightenment and freedom to those without.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, the Iraqi people are free, the reasons aren't completely honorable, they aren't about oil either, but it's a good end.