Edumacate yo' damn self

[Murgos]

Where the USA tends to fail in its nationbuilding is to wrap itself around a foreign ideology and work with it. You just don't understand people who don't want it your way, you think everybody who doesn't like everything just as you do just has to be made to understand that your way is the best. It may be for you, it certainly is close to what we Europeans prefer, but there are other people who don't like it that way. There you fail when you try to rebuild those nations in your likeness. As well-intended as it may be.

Alternative method please?  If you say we can't show them how good life can be under our system and thus cause them to change thier desires peaceably, voluntarily and from within then please demonstrate an effective and reasonable solution that does work.

[Boogaleeboo]

There you fail when you try to rebuild those nations in your likeness.

You've never actually HEARD of Japan, have you?

We did a serious mindfuck on those guys. Pre and post-war Japan are two HIGHLY different cultures. Oh sure, it's not America Jr. There are regional differences. We certainly accomplished our goal. We came in, we destroyed the existing culture, and we put in place one better suited to our viewpoint.

It's a matter of resolve. We don't really like marching halfway across the world and telling people what to do, so we try to end it as fast as possible. When we do focus on something? We get it done. Doesn't matter what the subject is, you get us to focus on it for more than 12 seconds and we always win.

Of course getting us to focus on something for longer than 12 seconds tends to be a problem.

[Tebonas]

I guess the Japanese would be quite offended if they knew their culture has been destroyed. They copied some western behaviour just like they copied western technology to mass produce it.

Of course, none of us two could convince the other that his view on Japan is right. So, do you have another example? Maybe some where the religious leaders don't gave up on behalf of their minions (like the Tenno did after the bombs), but where you suceeded against religious beliefs (like you would have to do in the Middle East obviously).

[Boogaleeboo]

They copied some western behaviour just like they copied western technology to mass produce it.

See, that's where you are wrong. They didn't have a choice in the matter. We took their Emperor, we took their army, we dictated for the longest time what they would be.

Modern Japan IS independent, but it got there marching down the road we set for it.

I haven't heard one person with a even passing grasp of history dispute that.

I'd like to know HOW you dispute that in fact.

[stray]

Maybe some where the religious leaders don't gave up on behalf of their minions (like the Tenno did after the bombs), but where you suceeded against religious beliefs (like you would have to do in the Middle East obviously).

I don't think this applies to Iraq as much as it does to others, but I think you've got a point. Not that it can't be done (It's been done before thousands of times throughout history), but battles of religion can only be fought using religion itself, not political ideologies or nationalism. Unless one believes they're fighting a battle for God, they aren't going to remain vigilant. As great as it is, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" just isn't going to hold up. You need more, and they happen to have it.

Unless America starts some sort of "crusade" themselves (yeah, like that would fly over well), they'll eventually give up while the enemy feels it's only getting started. As for a "peacable" solution, there isn't one, politically. Except perhaps, leaving.

[Boogaleeboo]

without a cause of our own?

We don't need one. You may have noticed their are 3 groups in Iraq, of which the old Shiite/Baath government  was a minority. The Sunni and surprisingly Kurds have taken more of an interest in running Iraq than I could have hoped. Fractured religious bickering can be a problem in a lot of ways, but in this case it's helping. A minority pisses off a majority long enough, they begin to take an interest in not being fucked with.

It's not something you write songs about, but it could buy Iraq the time it needs to work out what it wants to be.

[stray]

Damn, I deleted part of the passage that you quoted, sorry. But point taken. It's helping in Iraq, and of their own accord at that (well, sort of), but I wonder how much of it applies to the "Jihad" as a whole. Would they do the same elsewhere? Non-Shiites outnumber Shiites by far throughout the Middle East, but they tend to be semi-neutral or passive. Sounds like we could do a better job of using their cause to aide our side.

[Murgos]

You do it one step at a time.  If Iraq can stabilize itself and improve its standard of living to the point where moving there would be an attractive option for her neighbors more oppressed citizenry the political pressures will sort themselves out over time.

[Pineapple]

You do it one step at a time.  If Iraq can stabilize itself and improve its standard of living to the point where moving there would be an attractive option for her neighbors more oppressed citizenry the political pressures will sort themselves out over time.

Until our troops no longer stand literally on every other street in Bagdhad, we cannot proclaim that Iraq is free and democratic. So far, we proclaim that while we continue to have the same exact military presence.

Move our troops out, watch what happens in the next 12 months, then come talk to me. If Iraq isn't isnt in a mess then I will believe that we did the right thing. It is easy to brag, at the butt end of a gun. Remove our guns, and then brag.

[SirBruce]

Move our troops out, watch what happens in the next 12 months, then come talk to me. If Iraq isn't isnt in a mess then I will believe that we did the right thing. It is easy to brag, at the butt end of a gun. Remove our guns, and then brag.

Sounds fair.  But we have a Presidential election between now and them.  So, you'll have to vote for Bush this time, and then next election if you were right, I'll vote for your candidate, okay?

Bruce

[Boogaleeboo]

Move our troops out, watch what happens in the next 12 months, then come talk to me.

We STILL have thousands and thousands of troops in Japan. If we do this "right", we'll have troops in Iraq for the rest of your life. What'd you expect?

[SirBruce]

Move our troops out, watch what happens in the next 12 months, then come talk to me.

We STILL have thousands and thousands of troops in Japan. If we do this "right", we'll have troops in Iraq for the rest of your life. What'd you expect?

Well, we still have troops in Germany, South Korea, etc.  I didn't think he meant absolutely no troops, period, because that would be a very stupid thing to say.

Bruce

[Abagadro]

Bad analogy. The troops in Germany/Japan/South Korea have been there (at least for the last 50 years) for the purposes of projection of force/joint defense, not to quell the local population/prop up a regime from internal pressure.

[SirBruce]

50 years from now, neither will the troops in Iraq.

But quelling the local population and propping up the regime was certainly what the troops were there for the first few years after WW2.  And I would argue that our troops in Iraq are already also there for the purposes of projecting force and joint defense.

Bruce

[Abagadro]

There was nowhere near the instability and insurgency in those countries post-war than there is in Iraq.  They really aren't comparable.

[Alkiera]

There was nowhere near the instability and insurgency in those countries post-war than there is in Iraq.  They really aren't comparable.

Funny.  I've heard sections from magazine articles read from the late 1940's that sounded disturbingly accurate, if you went thru and replaced 'Germany' with 'Iraq'.  I admittedly was not alive back then, not by 30 years...  But the news coverage from then is often remarkably similar to now.

--
Alkiera

[ahoythematey]

God, I love it when the far-left places it's ideological theories against reality and reason.  Best entertainment I've had in days.

[Tebonas]

Those articles would really interest me. Not to disbelief you, but thats the first time I heard about that. Eveything I heard about that was how great those Americans were, how they loathed the Russian occupants in contrast, how they always got candy and chocolate as children, how much the army bases helped their economy, etc etc.

Even now, some people see the removal of US troops from Germany as punishment for their Iraq politics, and not as liberation from aforeign power.

[ahoythematey]

Sounds to me like you "heard" all that shit from movies and guesswork.

Sure, plenty of people were goddamn ecstatic to see U.S. troops in post-war Europe(just as is the case in Iraq), barring the Soviet army anyways, but also remember there were lots of families with members in the german army, not to mention the United States wasn't stingy on arial bombing.  The german army remade continental-Europe during it's years of occupation, sure, but we move in and everything turns to rubble before we get a surrender.  Perhaps both sides being predominantly-christian made "smoothing things over" easier than it has been in Iraq, but the fact remains that for the longest time the United States military was an occupying force, just like the Soviets were in East Germany.

As for some individuals continued insistance that France's opinion is significant: how can you have such faith in a culture that reacted to two world wars with 'elan, and the maginot line?  Fuck, I know I can't.

[Tebonas]

No, from my own grandparents. Who incidently where there, although as children. Maybe they are no 100% objective source, but I take them over a message board poster from another continent every time of the day!

Articles I could read and contemplate over. The opinion freshly pulled out of your rosy ass, not so much!

[SirBruce]

Way more information than you ever wanted to know about the US post-war occupation Germany can be found here:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/

Some interesting passages:

Typically, military government did not lack critics in the summer and fall of 1945. The New Republic viewed the Schaeffer affair as demonstrating "the inability of the Army to run the civil affairs of an occupied country." 11 Raymond Daniell of the New York Times charged the officers responsible for denazification with having lost sight of the reasons for which the war was fought.12 The Harrison report maintained that military government officers were timid about inconveniencing the Germans and more interested in getting German communities working soundly again than in caring for the DPs; furthermore, Truman told Eisenhower that the proper policies were not being carried out "by some of your officers in the field." 13 In October, during the aftermath of the Patton and Schaeffer incidents, the Army was completely on the defensive. Eisenhower wrote to Marshall about the "growing storm of discontent, even anger, among columnists and editors" that was giving the Army "a bad name when it is doing an overall good job." 14 Truscott talked to reporters about their "questioning the ability of the military mind to conduct civil affairs in occupied territory"; and Smith declared himself convinced that "the American people will never take kindly to the idea of government exercised by military officers." 15

In trouble with the press and publicly rebuked by the President (the White House released the President's letter to Eisenhower and the Harrison report on 31 August), military government's future was indeed murky-and that of the German people even more so. The important question of whether the Army was adequately performing its mission in Germany was being answered emotionally; and the more important question, in human terms, of what was going to happen to millions of Germans, both good and bad, was in danger of not being considered at all. Fortunately, on the day before he released the Harrison report, the President had sent Byron Price, who had been the Director of Censorship and who was an experienced newspaper man and former executive editor of the Associated Press, to Europe to "survey the general subject of relations between the American Forces of Occupation and the German people." After ten weeks in Germany, Price submitted a summary of what the occupation had done and not done since the surrender and a review of the problems ahead: hunger, economic reconstruction, and democratization. Concerning what had been done so far he concluded:

Taken altogether it [military government] seems to me a notable record of progress, whatever may be said by noisy backseat drivers. No one who knows the facts can fail to give General Eisenhower, his Deputy General Clay, and the staff of Military Government generally his continuing confidence and commendation. In no other zone of Germany

[400]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has greater progress been made toward the declared objectives of the Allied occupation.

As to the future, he warned, "The United States must decide whether we mean to finish the job competently, and provide the tools, the determination and the funds requisite to that purpose, or withdraw." 16 On 28 November, the President released Price's report to the press together with a letter to the Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy in which he directed them to "give careful consideration to this report, with a view to taking whatever joint action may be indicated." 17

The Army in Disarray

Three days before he departed to assume his appointment as Army Chief of Staff, Eisenhower had to tell the troops that the conduct of a "relatively small minority" among them could give the US forces "a lead reputation that will take our country a long time to overcome." He cited reckless driving, poor uniform discipline, and low standards of military and civilian courtesy as the chief shortcomings.62 Two weeks later, Seventh Army's CIC reported, "The general, opinion of the Germans is that ..American soldiers are men who drink to excess; have no respect for the uniform they wear; are prone to rowdyism and to heat civilians with no regard for human rights; and benefit themselves through the black market." 63 While Eisenhower was no doubt right that the troops involved were a minority, reports from Seventh Army CIC and other investigations showed the nature of the misconduct to be more serious than he implied. After V-J Day, what appeared to be almost an epidemic of unprovoked attacks on German civilians and robberies by US soldiers had spread across the zone. The Stuttgart police recorded fourteen acts of unprovoked violence against civilians in the last week of October. During one night in Landkreis Eschwege in the Western Military District, five drunken soldiers heat a local German official, and another civilian had his jaw broken when lie tried to reason with a soldier molesting a woman. In one small town, Boblingen, within five days in November soldiers beat up two civilians, tried to stab another, broke windows, tried to steal dogs, and robbed four civilians of watches and money.64  The Office of Military Government for Bavaria described the death of a German boy in a hunting accident involving soldiers as "a result of such carelessness as to be almost criminal. In Landkreis Burgen, also in Bavaria, three soldiers hunting illegally shot and killed an 18 year-old girl, and in the same Kreis the chief of police told investigators that soldiers had emptied several clips of ammunition at him at various times.65  Nearly all incidents involved liquor or women, often both. The population of vagrant women -which the Army inadvertently increased after November when it released penicillin for treating venereal diseases in German women, thereby shortening for some the "turn around time" from jail or hospital and attracting others who had been deterred by the fear of infection- was often

[421]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at the root of soldier attacks on German officials and police. By December, these attacks had grown so alarmingly frequent that Truscott had to issue what the Office of Military Government for Bavaria called "a public plea" for troop cooperation with the U.S.-appointed German officials.66  Misbehavior was not confined exclusively to the enlisted ranks. In one instance an American officer took an Austrian girl from Linz to Stuttgart, raped her three times, and then transported her to Ulm, where he turned her over to the military police on a charge of having improper papers.67

Bruce

[Tebonas]

Interesting, I would rate that as problems in execution and failures in group morale. Abuse of Authority, something that shouldn't happen, but sadly is a reality in all but the most disciplined policing forces. Actually if those were in part the same soldiers that witnessed the atrocities in the concentration camps, they showed remarkable discipline (the documents say they had been replaced by 1946, so at least some of them were here until then).

Mix that in with the natural distrust of any foreign force on your own ground, and it all worked out remarkably well. I stand to my distinction, almost nobody in Germany hated the Americans for ideological reasons, but purely for practical or personal ones, having the Russians as possible alternative surely helped matters. Was everybody happy? Of course not, is everybody happy in Germany right now? Or in the USA for that matter?

[Margalis]

God, I love it when the far-left places it's ideological theories against reality and reason.  Best entertainment I've had in days.

You spelled "right" wrong. I assume you are talking about the recent clash of ideology vs. reality in Iraq, the whole they will welcome us with open arms thing, no? That's a pretty recent example don't you think?

[Boogaleeboo]

If they wanted to hurt us, there'd be a lot more US soldiers dead. They may not have renamed Sunday "We Love America" day, but they've managed with out presence quite well.

Or I'm sorry, did you think armed occupation of a country was like Club Med?

[Roac]

But most people, even OUTSIDE the US, were not doubtful. That's why the UN passed a resolution, sent in inspectors, etc.

On this front, we know he did not have nukes; their construction requires large, conspicuous facilities of which he only ever had one, which the Israelies bombed, and which never did go live.  Chemical weapons have, effectively, a use by date.  They go bad, and by now most of any chems that Saddam had were spoiled.  Not safe, mind you, but not nearly as effective.  Bios are the main trouble, because they have an effectively indefinite shelf life and because they are incredibly easy to store.  We likely never would have found his bios, and they're still out there somewhere.  

However, the very people we sent in to do inspections said they did not have enough time or resources to do their job appropriately; in respect to that, we were hasty in our war effort.  Those inspectors, as well as international leaders, did show doubt against the level of WMD programs/weapon stockpiles that the US suggested were in place; and their doubts turned out to be based in fact.  It was always possible Saddam had pocket research going on, and stored WMDs, but they would be trivial to hide.  A lot of people are raising questions as to what was expected here - a lot of people have a dislike for impossible goals.  

You're willing to risk having a guy who is threatening to kill you go free because you think he won't be able to get ahold of a gun or break through your security system.

Well, we tried to kill him.  Most people do tend to take that personally.  And no, I have never had any desire to have Saddam in power; I'd have just assumed he got tossed in the first war.  I'd have liked to have seen him yanked out of power when he gassed his own people.  I don't want to see him pulled from power on the implied premise that he conspired with Osama to attack us, and for the act to be for all intents a US unilateral action against a people who are already giving the "We want the US to fall at all costs" agenda a serious look.  

Yes, yes, I know... no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship. But your claim was that that Iraq would never have developed one, and the evidence indicates that it was a distinct possibility had to two sides continued talking. It's quite possible they didn't and we don't know it yet. But all I'm saying is you can't say you could have trusted Iraq to NOT develop such a relationship, based on the evidence.

Sure I can say that.  Politics at this level is about taking chances, and trusting one Human motive(s) over another.  Trust isn't really the right word here, since that implies a confidence in Saddam - rather it's confidence in his motives.  Saddam ran a secular government, and was himself a Suni; a group that had a good bit of friction against the Iraqi Shia majority, which were the primary groups in both Iran's government (one of dubya's axis of evil), and the Taliban.  Osama offered the Saudis to lead a war effort against Saddam in GW1.  I also know that Saddam has a very, very strong vengeance motive, and has a tendancy to forgive his former enemies and invite them over for tea, so that they'll come into the open so he can kill them.  He's done that before.  You'll note also that Saddam has had no issue throwing his own sons into jail, and that the two of them were borderline insane.  

Yeah, seeing the two of them (Saddam / Osama) work together would be a thing I'd have to see to believe.  The only, and I do mean only, thing they had in common was a hatred for the US.  That being the case, the only thing that would've led to much cooperation between them was something instigated by the US - that is, us giving them a reason to work together by backing them both into a corner.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

this thread makes my eyes go white, but to address post-ww2 Japan, we didn't force anything on them. We bombed the bejeezus out of them, and decimated a war machine upon which 90% (fake figure. Statistically: a lot)of the GNP was devoted. Without a war, their industry and economy came to a stop.

We said to Japan: "you were very very bad. We had to punish you, but we still love you and we're here if you need help."

we gave them food. We gave them medicine. We gave them the materials to rebuild. We gave them an interim governmental structure and then we gave them autonomy - and left them with our phone number and said to call us if they need anything else.

Japan could easily have said, "no no. Two A bombs were plently helpful thanks. no more help needed." and we would have parked ships in their harbor just the same.

We didn't destroy a culture - we destroyed a mentality. Last I checked, Japan had a rich and enduring culture.

[Boogaleeboo]

It just doesn't happen to be the exact same one as before the war.

And I find your assesment of their choice in the matter....optimistic. We'll never know, as they didn't object so strongly as they could have. It never came down to cards. Would we have stayed anyway? The Cold War began the second we dropped those nukes. Would we have left Japan without our influence next to the USSR? I don't know.

Shit, look at Germany. You think we parked our asses there for the cool scenery?

[WayAbvPar]

I assumed it was for the beer and sausages.

[daveNYC]

I assumed it was for the beer and sausages.

We had just wiped out a huge chunk of the 18-40 year old male population of a country that is know for tall blondes.

[stray]

I assumed it was for the beer and sausages.

We had just wiped out a huge chunk of the 18-40 year old male population of a country that is know for tall blondes.

I know my Dad did his part. I probably have a few half-German brothers and sisters I don't know about.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I have ninety-seven German half-brothers.

[HaemishM]

Yes.  Because Liberty and Democracy > Oppression and Dicatorship, no matter what metrics you choose to measure the "good" of the state.  Perhaps you missed the past, oh, 1000 years of history during which Europeans figured this out.  From the Magna Carta to Cromwell to the United States to Napolean to Hitler and Mousslini to Communism, it's all been part of a long process of moral discovery.  What matters is what you believe and what you do to achieve those ideals, not the ultimate outcome of that pursuit.

Your big words confuse me. Are you saying that even if the entirety of Iraq comes out more fucked up than it is today and was during the days of Saddam, that somehow the Iraqi people are better off because we INTENDED to give them democracy? The ultimate outcome doesn't matter?

So if, say, Iraq falls to a Taliban-esque religious dictatorship that gets voted in by democratic method, that's ok because they chose it? What the fuck are you smoking?

As for Europe figured out about democracies bit, yeah, it wasn't like Europe gave us the Nazis, or Serbia/Bosnia and ethnic cleansing or anything. Oh wait, it was.

Democracy is no shield against oppressive regimes.

[SirBruce]

Yes.  Because Liberty and Democracy > Oppression and Dicatorship, no matter what metrics you choose to measure the "good" of the state.  Perhaps you missed the past, oh, 1000 years of history during which Europeans figured this out.  From the Magna Carta to Cromwell to the United States to Napolean to Hitler and Mousslini to Communism, it's all been part of a long process of moral discovery.  What matters is what you believe and what you do to achieve those ideals, not the ultimate outcome of that pursuit.

Your big words confuse me.

Clearly.

Are you saying that even if the entirety of Iraq comes out more fucked up than it is today and was during the days of Saddam, that somehow the Iraqi people are better off because we INTENDED to give them democracy? The ultimate outcome doesn't matter?

Yes.  Well, actually, you're conflating two different things here.

1. Iraq is better off because they are given more freedom than they had under their opressor, regardless of the ultimate outcome.  But more specifically I was speaking not of the ultimate outcome of government but of the ultimate outcome of metrics you are using to gauge "good", like number of people starving or the frequency of crime or whatever.  Better to be free and starve than to be a slave and well-fed.

2. We INTENDED to give them Democracy, so regardless of the ultimate outcome, our actions were still morally justified because our intent was noble.  This doesn't mean one can't make mistakes in implementation; it just means those mistakes often pale when compared to the moral value of the intention.  Like when you try to save an injured person from a burning building but you wind up injuring them in the process.

So if, say, Iraq falls to a Taliban-esque religious dictatorship that gets voted in by democratic method, that's ok because they chose it? What the fuck are you smoking?

You obfusicated the issue by inserting the ambiguous term "ok".  Of course it's not "ok" in the sense that yes, there are better outcomes.  But that does not mean that the actions which led to less-than-optimal outcomes are de facto "wrong" in the moral sense.  In other words, it is quite possible to do everything in your mortal power "right" and still have things not turn out perfect.

As for Europe figured out about democracies bit, yeah, it wasn't like Europe gave us the Nazis, or Serbia/Bosnia and ethnic cleansing or anything. Oh wait, it was.

Did you even read what I wrote?  I covered that in the whole 1000-year struggle thing.

Democracy is no shield against oppressive regimes.

No one claimed it was.  Again, we have to understand the moral distinction: it is morally superior to have a Democracy than to have a Dictatorship, even if that means a choice between an opressive Democracy and a benevolent Dictatorship.  The form of government speaks to the essential nature of a thing; its fundamental principles.  The outcome of that government is simply a matter of details of implementation.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

1. Iraq is better off because they are given more freedom than they had under their opressor, regardless of the ultimate outcome.  But more specifically I was speaking not of the ultimate outcome of government but of the ultimate outcome of metrics you are using to gauge "good", like number of people starving or the frequency of crime or whatever.  Better to be free and starve than to be a slave and well-fed.

We should make sure to inscribe that on the tombstones of all those who die of starvation in our free society. I'm pretty sure that most people, regardless of race, would prefer to eat than starve, if it comes right down to it. No atheists in foxholes.

I'd also wager that a number of people who had good jobs in Saddam Hussein's regime, weren't politically active (and thus dangerous), and enjoyed the freedom of religion that Hussein's regime allowed didn't really appreciate us coming in and blowing the shit out of things they didn't think were broken.

2. We INTENDED to give them Democracy, so regardless of the ultimate outcome, our actions were still morally justified because our intent was noble.  This doesn't mean one can't make mistakes in implementation; it just means those mistakes often pale when compared to the moral value of the intention.  Like when you try to save an injured person from a burning building but you wind up injuring them in the process.

Hitler intended to make the German people "strong" again. He was tired of starving Germans being dictated to by the League of Nations. He was also bugfuck crazy and blamed shit on the Jews.

Good intentions aren't enough when you are talking about destroying a country and then rebuilding it in your image.

No one claimed it was.  Again, we have to understand the moral distinction: it is morally superior to have a Democracy than to have a Dictatorship, even if that means a choice between an opressive Democracy and a benevolent Dictatorship.  The form of government speaks to the essential nature of a thing; its fundamental principles.  The outcome of that government is simply a matter of details of implementation.

Details, like people, apparently don't matter. Because those details you so casually gloss over are people's lives. And the annoying bit about our claim of moral superiority is that our administration glosses over those same details. A few casualties are the price of freedom. Never mind that the people being told to give up their lives, i.e. the innocent Iraqi people, never asked for our help.

Moral superiority also needs the help of actually being right.

The nuclear weapons charge... patently false. WMD... again, false. Terrorist links from Iraq to Al-Qaeda or really any terrorist other than sending checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers... false.

None of the things our current administration has stated as cold, hard facts about the Hussein regime has been proven to be true, other than the well-known fact that he was a brutal, petty dictator. Kind of like the brutal, petty dictators we prop up in places like Saudi Arabia, except he didn't play nice-nice with us.

We cannot claim moral superiority in the War in Iraq simply because we're slightly less of a bastard than Hussein was.

[ahoythematey]

Am I to assume these assessments were pulled out of your ass, Haemish?  I'm just asking, because it seems that is your sort of thing.

EDIT: I find it particularly fascinating how hip it is to hate america these days.  I guess that's just the downside one accepts when living in a generally functioning democratic republic with an enormous amount of personal freedom allowed to each and every citizen.