lashachochua Wrote:So?....
You can not compare Singapure and thailand and say that in Singapure democracy was not exported....In both countries democracy was exported....And also it is not right to say that if in both countries it was exported than why it is that singapure is far more developed?...This is the same question as to ask Why is that USA is more developed that f.x. UK, in both countries democracy was developed natuarally....There is very simple answer. Democracy does not equal to development, devlopment is more complex

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:So?....
You can not compare Singapure and thailand and say that in Singapure democracy was not exported....In both countries democracy was exported....And also it is not right to say that if in both countries it was exported than why it is that singapure is far more developed?...This is the same question as to ask Why is that USA is more developed that f.x. UK, in both countries democracy was developed natuarally....There is very simple answer. Democracy does not equal to development, devlopment is more complex

Hm, do You know History of Singapure ? It seems that You have not understood something right.
First of all its population is really euroasian - so it has had influenced (populated) by europeans
for hundreds of years. And NOPE - US has nothing to do with their democratization.
They have never needed "American Dream" they have their own and it is better. When You compare
Singapure against US You can see it Yourself. US is a poor Country - not a dream for them

lashachochua Wrote:Can you tell me why industrialization happened in UK and not in China, nevertheless to the fact that china had more splendid technology and history of technological progress.....There was no democracy in all these countries even in Japan till 1950-1960

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:Can you tell me why industrialization happened in UK and not in China, nevertheless to the fact that china had more splendid technology and history of technological progress.....There was no democracy in all these countries even in Japan till 1950-1960

Its because their culture had different values - progress was not thought to be more important than traditions.

You know democracy was not very universal at the beginning of 1900 - and If You think e.g. something
called democracy - but womens didn't have right to vote... it is questionable democracy. So we can say
that democracy as we now it was born sometime 1920.

lashachochua Wrote:My friend, in all colonies democracy was exported...Even the USA is classical example....Historians always compare American and African countries in this sense. The only place where democracy was not exported was what is called Old Europe....Ok it does not matter, what about South Korea and North Korea, to tell the truth i do not know in details the history of singapure

lashachochua Wrote:Singapore was founded as a British trading colony in 1819. It joined the Malaysian Federation in 1963 but separated two years later and became independent. Singapore subsequently became one of the world's most prosperous countries with strong international trading links (its port is one of the world's busiest in terms of tonnage handled) and with per capita GDP equal to that of the leading nations of Western Europe.


Democracy was exported, but a bit earlier than in thailand!!!!

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:My friend, in all colonies democracy was exported...Even the USA is classical example....Historians always compare American and African countries in this sense. The only place where democracy was not exported was what is called Old Europe....Ok it does not matter, what about South Korea and North Korea, to tell the truth i do not know in details the history of singapure

Ok,
Btw. Singapure was first populated by UK and French trading company owners (and their servants). It was
biggest Harbors serving Europe - China trade.

Democracy from Old Europe to America ???? Those time there wasn't democracies in Europe - but monarhies.
So from where they got democracy to colonies - really hard to figure out ?

lashachochua Wrote:Ok independent. I think it is your stretagy to talk about different things but not about Russian-Georgian problem, now I guessed this

lashachochua Wrote:Friend democracy as an ideology was formulated in Greece, than the process of enlightment provided solid theoretical foundation for democracy, many english and french thinkers.....The true realization of democracy started from religious groups who went from europe to America..........

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:Singapore was founded as a British trading colony in 1819. It joined the Malaysian Federation in 1963 but separated two years later and became independent. Singapore subsequently became one of the world's most prosperous countries with strong international trading links (its port is one of the world's busiest in terms of tonnage handled) and with per capita GDP equal to that of the leading nations of Western Europe.


Democracy was exported, but a bit earlier than in thailand!!!!

Nope - Britain wasn't democracy that time.

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:Friend democracy as an ideology was formulated in Greece, than the process of enlightment provided solid theoretical foundation for democracy, many english and french thinkers.....The true realization of democracy started from religious groups who went from europe to America..........

I was saying that democratic countries are relatively new "innovation". And mostly spread by individuals
rather than countries. And without forcing - until now

lashachochua Wrote:Come on man, just recall Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, johe locke and many others.....

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:Come on man, just recall Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, johe locke and many others.....

There was of course democrats but it didn't make UK was democracy

lashachochua Wrote:Yes your are right, it was not systemized in such way, but free trade, free markets and so one are the part of democratic system, remember Japan was closed for a long time, actually system in Japan started to democratize after free trade.......So in different face but the democratization of world USA started very actively after World War II, and I think you will agree that this the period when countries really started to democratize, many assian countries and for many cases, this was not their choice

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:Yes your are right, it was not systemized in such way, but free trade, free markets and so one are the part of democratic system, remember Japan was closed for a long time, actually system in Japan started to democratize after free trade.......So in different face but the democratization of world USA started very actively after World War II, and I think you will agree that this the period when countries really started to democratize, many assian countries and for many cases, this was not their choice

There is the biggest difference indeed - democracy was not by anyway tied to "free market" - it is US
innovation and there are reasons for it - simply profitable for country who can dictate all rules ( and use
double standsrds as needed ). So there is difference between democracy and this neo-liberalistic democracy

lashachochua Wrote:Yes your are right, it was not systemized in such way, but free trade, free markets and so one are the part of democratic system, remember Japan was closed for a long time, actually system in Japan started to democratize after free trade.......So in different face but the democratization of world USA started very actively after World War II, and I think you will agree that this the period when countries really started to democratize, many assian countries and for many cases, this was not their choice

lashachochua Wrote:In this you are right. Liberalizm is different from democracy.... But USA combined them and used it as ideology, ofcaurse the goal of USA was to get as much markets as possible, do you remember my talks about economic globalization, but than USA realised that it is not enough and started not only to liberilize but also democratize, this is when virtual globalization started.........

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:In this you are right. Liberalizm is different from democracy.... But USA combined them and used it as ideology, ofcaurse the goal of USA was to get as much markets as possible, do you remember my talks about economic globalization, but than USA realised that it is not enough and started not only to liberilize but also democratize, this is when virtual globalization started.........

Just one question - do You think it is a good thing to those countries who are targets ?

lashachochua Wrote:I think I have to conclude my opinion....I think that the ideology of the USA made many countries to liberelize and democratize, after this many of these countries show steady economic growth...It does not matter what were the goals of USA, the living standards in these countries are getting better and better...Soviet Union Could not manage to do the same, that's why it lost in cold war....What I am also telling, Russia does not have any ideology like the USA had, that's why Russia can not be a superpower...Russia does not offer anything new...Just weapons are not enough to get superpower...At least if russia will continue to behave like bull, it is behaving today (I do not care about USA-Europe Policy). The whole world, among them Chine, will oppose this........I more see next superpower in chine hands, than in russian hands......

lashachochua Wrote:Independent, you should not have to ask me this question...You think I like how large countries behave with small countries.... But in this fucking world we have to make choice between bad and worse........

independent Wrote:

lashachochua Wrote:I think I have to conclude my opinion....I think that the ideology of the USA made many countries to liberelize and democratize, after this many of these countries show steady economic growth...It does not matter what were the goals of USA, the living standards in these countries are getting better and better...Soviet Union Could not manage to do the same, that's why it lost in cold war....What I am also telling, Russia does not have any ideology like the USA had, that's why Russia can not be a superpower...Russia does not offer anything new...Just weapons are not enough to get superpower...At least if russia will continue to behave like bull, it is behaving today (I do not care about USA-Europe Policy). The whole world, among them Chine, will oppose this........I more see next superpower in chine hands, than in russian hands......

Ok, You compare US - Russia so You prefer US . I compare EU - US and prefer EU. So I like to see
politic handled rather EU way than US way.
I think our opinions are indeed mostly similar.

lashachochua Wrote:I do agree with EU choice, I prefer collective union like EU than the single country.........In such case we will feel ourselves more safer...That is why we want to join EU....This is our only way in this historical moment to be servived from Russian aggression.....Now many thinks that Georgia started the war....But it is not reality....We all should understand that Russia had possibility to stop Ossettians not to fire on Georgian villages...Provocation was started by russia, Georgia accepted this game........and the result we see......This is why we do not want to appear in future in such games were rules are made by russia....This is why we need EU help....This is why we need EU membership.......Is it difficult to understand?....