• If conditions are met then yes.

    Assuming you mean partial-democracy because real-democracy hasn't ever existed on Earth. And assuming you mean domestically i.E internally, promoting democracy not internationally because no nation ever has any right to impose their will onto another unconditionally. And assuming your taking folks hard earned money i.E expecting a service from your citizen and wish to offer something in return, in exchange for that hard earned dollar and assuming you are taking this money from your fellow countrymen unconditionally i.E mandatory, pay or go to jail now, and assuming then that you use their own money to punish them on behalf of themselves... Ok then that is ok to promote democracy, as you wish.

  • The U.S Should Promote Democracy

    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)

  • The U.S Should Promote Democracy

    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.

  • U.S. should promote democracy

    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.

  • Planting democracy just doesn't work

    In a culture hostile to liberal democracy, democracy will not last very long. The people will simply select an autocratic leader anyways. Using military intervention breeds resentment against the U.S., and can actually be counter-productive. Look at the Arab Spring, and the mess that left behind. Sometimes, the fear of an attack by the U.S. will make the people of that nation even more devoted to their authoritarian government for the sheer sake of their own safety.

  • We should leave other countries alone.

    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.

  • Strangely ,The World Can Decide For Itself

    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 United States does not have a moral obligation to promote democracy

    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 U.S. does not have any obligation to promote democracy in foreign nations

    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.

  • US should not promote democracy

    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.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.