In countries like Saudi Arabia women do not have any rights (They still have to have a males permission to study, obtain a job, travel, marry, or to even obtain an ID card). Instead of the U.S trying to help change this, they are trading with Saudi Arabia.
The U.S does not have to run into a country armed to promote democracy, but there are many ways that the U.S could promote democracy, specifically by not trading with countries that take the civil liberties away from their population.
In other countries such as North Korea, Kim Jong-II imprisoned "hundreds of thousands of citizens, including children, imprisoned in labor camps for such “crimes” as hoarding food and “ anti-socialist” activities." (http://parade.Com/110573/davidwallechinsky/the-worlds-10-worst-dictators/)
Should the U.S not stand up for the rights of women and children in other countries where they otherwise have no say, and are imprisoned over petty crimes, such as a different political party or speaking against their leader or country?
There are many ways that the U.S could help to better the lives of the helpless masses in many countries, and if the U.S stands by and does nothing for fear of being seen as being pushy, we could be looking at a generation of genocide, labor camps, and oppression of citizens.
In school we are taught that in a situation of bullying you should not stand by and watch another kid be bullied, but stand up to the bully. In today's scenario it is not only like the U.S is a bystander to terrible violence occurring in other countries, but the U.S in some cases is also supporting the leaders of those countries by trading with them.
(Also, keep in mind that in some countries today, they would live in fear of expressing their opinion on a site like this. Thankfully, all of us posting on this have the freedom of speech to allow us to not be imprisoned for any opinions we have about the way our country is being run)
Countries like Saudi Arabia give no rights to their women (who still have to have a male's permission to study, obtain a job, marry, travel, and even to obtain an ID). Is the U.S not supposed to promote a democracy in Saudi Arabia for women's rights?
Also, in countries like North Korea where actions of the dictator Kim Jong-II were destroying the people, such as "Hundreds of thousands of citizens, including children, are imprisoned in labor camps for such “crimes” as hoarding food and “ anti-socialist” activities." (http://parade.Com/110573/davidwallechinsky/the-worlds-10-worst-dictators/)
Does the U.S not have a responsibility to protect the kids and stand up for the population that does not want such dictators running their country?
If the U.S does not in some way try to promote a better way of governing then we are looking at a time of ignoring genocides and basic rights being taken away from the public in other countries because of a fear of seeming too pushy.
While it may seem self-serving that the U.S. promote democracy as the only right way to govern, it is the right thing to do. History has shown that dictators do not benefit the countries they represent. Ideologically, it is dictating to say that democracy is the only way. Until anyone demonstrates a better way of governing, it is incumbent upon the U.S. to ensure that people everywhere are allowed to live a free and independent life.
Other countries that have a dictator might see this as us trying to turn the people against them. They would not appreciate this and try to start a war with us. Dictators are not often reasoned with. If we don't like dictators, why would we dictate other countries on the form of government that they find suitable.
America is not the ruler of the world. America is not in charge. America does not get to choose what political system the world gets to use. If the people feel strongly enough they will rise up, as you see on the news every single day. Just put down your guns, disarm your nukes and calm down.
The government has an obligation to serve the interests of the people but the government is elected and it can change, so the way it serves the people can change. It is not always the case that democracy is the best thing to promote when the U.S. government is serving the interests of the people. Democracy requires a lot of complex systems to function properly and if a country doesn't have those systems in place, then it is not reasonable to promote democracy there. For example, a democracy has to have a system of voting that is backed up by a fair judicial system. If a country has corrupt police and no real court system, then it doesn't have the infrastructure required to support free and fair elections, so promoting democracy there would be a little bit unreasonable. If the US is trading with such a country, then stability and a respect for contracts should be promoted before democracy. Hence there is no real moral obligation to promote democracy.
The United States does not have any moral obligation to promote democracy in other nations. Every nation is sovereign and should be allowed to be left alone. The United States are not the world police, and are not the ultimate moral authority in this world. Each nation in this world should be left to run itself how it sees fit. If the populace of a nation revolts against its government and said government begins to harm its populace, then intervention may be necessary. Just because the U.S. has a democracy, does not mean that everyone should, or that it is the best type of government in another country.
The United States does not have a moral obligation to promote democracy. Democracy does not work with every culture. The United States can recommend democracy and help other nations that are attempting to use this form of government, but when the US goes into other nations and forced democracy on the, it will not work.