It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Building a Nation

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 11:40 PM
Let me begin by saying, I do not feel that our government KNOWINGLY does this, but this is the way it works.

Let's say you want to take an area of conflicting ethnic groups that is riddled with Tribal Warfare (you killed my brother I'll kill yours, never ending cycle).

What do you do to democraticize it?

Storm it and force them to cooperate?

No way in hell, democracies can not do that, people need to be willing to accept a democracy, before it can become strong.

So what's the best way?

Prop up a dictator over all that disputed land, he'll organize the people into ONE nation, and subdue the people and end Vendettas (Killing in a blood fude//non-stop fighting until you've gained vengance)

So the dictator took care of all the nasty business for you, all the killing, all the imprisoning, just to gain organization over this land.

So what does a dictator do?

He makes it perfectly capable, to now over throw him, and easily with little resistance, set up a democracy!

Very easily, all you do is keep a presence there, you don't even really fight constantly, just police more or less.

I think that our government isn't manipulating this purposely (propping up dictators and such just to tear them back down) but I think they are definately beginning to see this, and maybe feeling to take advantage of this.

See they created organized governments over a diffuse culture, such as in Iraq, which is really the only case, South Vietnam is another but that failed. They don't really expect them to become dictatorships, but more or less without our presence they do, but now the dictator "unites the people" through force, and we simply knock him over and replace him with a democratic government modeled after american ideals, to a people who 30 years before could never be brought together to vote in a congress, because it would errupt in killing.

no signature

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 03:21 AM
Yes, thats actually great theory. Good thinking FreeMason.

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 07:42 AM
Some interest there, F-M; but there does seem to be a staggering number of counter-examples: Pakistan, Haiti, the Shah of Persia, the Emir of Kuwait, Allende, Chavez, Estrada in the PhilippinesÖ.
Perhaps more accurate to say: ìinstall a pro-American dictator ( no shortage of those- dollars being dollars) until such time as the electorate has the wit to support a pro-American demagogue.î.
Mind you, one couldnít fault that as foreign policy.
On the other hand ñwould you seriously want to represent the USA as the paradigm of democracy: scandalous ìredistrictingî, low turn-out, gerrymandering, pregnant chads, an appalling record of real or attempted disenfranchisement (a beginnerís guide here: )
As I say: an interesting thought experiment, but I cannot believe you are literally serious about this.

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 07:44 AM
I wouldn't for a moment wish to assert that Britain was much better when she had the srt of global power the US now enjoys.
Somewhat better domestically (but we had longer and had far fewer political pressures: slavery, immigration etc. etc.)

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 08:13 PM
Well Estragon, some of your counter examples don't fit the mold.

I know for a fact that about 95% of Iran is Shiite muslim, they are not riddled with tribal in-fighting.

I'm not sure about Pakistan but Kuwait is very similar, as is Qatar...phillipines, for the longest time they had been a Spanish subjugate, they may still have a dictatorship-like government (not looked at them either) but they don't have a myriad of cultures fighting eachother.

Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, they are tribal, Iraq has Shiites Sunnis Kurds and some 20+ other ethnic groups...Marsh on...and before Iraq, and even now but very much less so, these groups didn't get along.

The best current example is Somalia, which just 12 or more years ago was in complete civil war due to its tribal issues, and still they use tribal laws.

But recently a more dictatoral government does reside there, and now, it is gaining stability, bringing these myriads of peoples into a sort of unwanted union...but peace is starting to settle there even though it's only a tad compared to what we think of as peace.

That's my point, it's quite different then say Iran where most of the people are through with fighting themselves...another example is Sudan, massive civil war has been raging there for about 40 years!

It's just a simple connection, between taking a large myriad of peoples, and forging them into a democratic union, it can't be done without the dictatoral force that we've seen around the world.

That's all...more specific points about the countries you listed would help though

no signature

new topics

top topics

log in