Why has the American method of bringing in democracy by force failed spectacularly in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Vietnam, yet has been relatively successful in Germany, Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia, Panama, and Grenada?
You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Any attempts by America to democratize the reason has been met with an emphatic "Nah" by the countries we did it to
>>1162014
It failed in Yugoslavia. It's just that Yugoslavia could, after civil war, re-organise themselves, draw new borders etc.
In Germany, Japan, Korea and Panama, stable strong countries with modern economy. Therefore America invested into those countries so they could develop their own economy(and in case of SK - military).
In Afghanistan the US wanted to support their Opium-producing friends, the development of the country would only make things worse for those(as it would need that the labour would get more expensive and the government more able to go in and fuck them up for producing drugs). Other than that it was to piss off the Russians. Saudi Arabia exploited that and placed their wahabbi plants inside.
In Iraq and Libya the point was to remove all oil producers in the region that didn't want to be dominated by Saudis.
In Somalia they went in for the image but after they took first serious casualties they've pulled out because lol - what's the point of meddling there.
In Vietnam it was all because they wanted to stop teh communism. To do so they've supported retarded, uber-religious dictator who was religious minority(Christian) and absolutely hated the majority(Buddhists).
That they've failed to the point where they were supporting the Red Khmers who were attacked by NV is another thing.
>>1162014
Because only brutal dictators can make those countries work.
>>1162040
>In Germany, Japan, Korea and Panama, they needed stable strong countries with modern economy.
fix'd
>>1162014
Because we delude ourselves into thinking liberal democratic values are universal when some cultures naturally prefer authoritarianism.
>>1162014
The aim was never to bring democracy first of all and liberal democracy requires its corrupt element, in fact the point of liberal democracy is just to obscure autocrat influence.
If you don't have a plurality of large scale powers influencing the game as is the case in a lot of middle to low income countries then liberal democracy just doesn't make sense.
>>1162014
because Japan, Germany, Korea, tec were all successful countries in their own right before getting freedom'd.
>>1162014
>he thinks American foreign policy has anything to do with bringing democracy
This, my fellow anon, is called a pretext. A convinient lie we tell ourselves to justify wars of imperial expropriation and aggression.
It has nothing to do with spreading democracy. Precisely nothing.
>>1164646
>>1164625
Regardless of the motive behind bringing in democracy, that was still the end goal. Whether the reasoning was preventing the spread of communism, winning ww2, maintaining american supremacy in central america, or maintaining the petrodollar, the goal was still to install a western friendly democracy.
Because people want what they want, and when you give them the illusion of choice, they will go against you.
America fails because instead of marching into Whatever the Fuck-istan and saying, "This is your head of government" they allow them to vote for total incompetents.
If they want to be ruled, they're going to get it
If it's a shit country to begin with, there's only so much you can do from the outside.
