Hear a Peace Activist Face a Tough Question From an Iraqi

[Richard G]

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

Very telling. If you really have a conviction about something you should be able to answer a simple question about those convictions. Anyone who can't should SHUT UP.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Richard G
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

Very telling. If you really have a conviction about something you should be able to answer a simple question about those convictions. Anyone who can't should SHUT UP. Sorry, I couldn't hear anything.

However, are you (saying SHUT UP) restricting the freedom of speech to those who can eloquently defend their viewpoints? Or those who can defend their viewpoints in any way?

Freedom of speech are for the idiots, for the morons, for the ones you hate. All other, those you like, or agree with, could do well without it.

Skeptics shouldn't ask anyone to shut up, should they? :confused:

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Skeptics shouldn't ask anyone to shut up, should they? :confused:

Try to answer the question yourself: "How can leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

-Ben

"Simplistic Nickolodean diplomacy, little girl..." :D

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Try to answer the question yourself: "How can leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

-Ben Ben - that has nothing to do with my point, that people you disagree with have just the same right to express their viewpoints as you do.

I have small problems when people are called idiots, but larger ones when then are told to 'shut up'.

[Richard G]

People who babble on uninformed, and completely ignorant of what they are talking about bother me more.

[no one in particular]

If I may, Richard G, I would like to restructure your two main sentences so as to clear up a bit of confusion, I think.

Originally posted by Richard G [altered for clarification by no one in particular]

Anyone who can't [answer a simple question about] [convictions] should SHUT UP.

Nicely put Richard G.

Bjorn, I believe this statement to be very specific about who should not be voicing their opinion. Stated differently, anyone that can not defend or articulate their position, like the “joking bird” in the audio file, should not partake in a debate. It is very easy to have an opinion; it is difficult to defend your opinion.

The guy on the phone sounded like a provacateur. (Hope I spelled that correctly.) Sometimes radio show hosts will use someone to call in to provoke or get a rise out of their guest.

Regardless, the girl sounded like so many people who are just parroting something they heard someone smarter than them say. Thus, the lack of depth to her convictions.

Kinda like peace marchers.....;)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Richard G
People who babble on uninformed, and completely ignorant of what they are talking about bother me more. Sure, we all see/hear them all the time. They all disagree with us. Morons. Every one of them.

Their freedom of speech is what it's all about.

Saying that they should SHUT UP is wrong. Ask them what they really mean. Tell them that that's idiotic. Ask them to defend their viewpoints. To explain.

Someone would say that you Richard, is 'babbling uninformed and completely ignorant of what you are talking about'.

Isn't it great to have the freedom to keep on 'babbling' instead of being told to shut up? :confused:

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Bjorn, I believe this statement to be very specific about who should not be voicing their opinion. Stated differently, anyone that can not defend or articulate their position, like the “joking bird” in the audio file, should not partake in a debate. It is very easy to have an opinion; it is difficult to defend your opinion. So, if you are not very articulate and able to defend a position, you shouldn't be allowed to point out the position you have? :confused:

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Try to answer the question yourself: "How can leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

-Ben

That is a simple one: it doesn't and noone ever claimed it would.

[OdderMensch]

Prehaps Richard G isn't sugesting she BE shut up, only that her talking isn't helping her cause any. Of he several people i've had anti-war disscussions with, in person, most seem to use the same "peace in our time" arguement. But I still urge them to continue, You cannot point out someones ignorance, but you can help them see it themselves.

[iain]

Originally posted by armageddonman

"How can leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

That is a simple one: it doesn't and noone ever claimed it would. It seems no harder to answer that question than "how can starting a war against a country which is not itself threatening war promote peace?". armageddonman is right - the question is a strawman.

The idea that someone is stupid because cannot give an immediate good answer to a trick question is crazy. One of the good things about this forum is that when someone posts a question or a point, people have time to think up an answer and can post at their leisure. I'm sure that many of us, myself included, would be giving a lot more stupid answers if they all had to be off-the-cuff and the questions were designed to catch us out.

Now if the question was something like "Which is more likely to promote peace and justice in Iraq : a short war which deposes Saddam or a longer peaceful diplomatic process" that would seem to me to be a fairer question and more of a genuine reflection of the issues.

[Troll]

Try looking at it this way:

"Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
--- Abraham Lincoln

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Bjorn
So, if you are not very articulate and able to defend a position, you shouldn't be allowed to point out the position you have? :confused:

What an individual should not do or should not be allowed to do are clearly two different things. Someone that is unable to articulate their position does their opinion a disservice when the voice it.

Simple example follows:

Some toothless redneck just wants to go kill a bunch of towel heads because he thinks ‘them folks over there are just ignorant’. Said redneck should shut the hell up because he is doing the pro war side a disservice. He has every right to make himself look like a moron, I just wish he would not.

With that said…we are making a lot of assumptions about the lady in the audio file. We are only privy to this 6 minute sample of what was clearly a much larger debate (she had already been on the air for 45 minutes). We are clearly unable to make a sound analysis of the lady’s position based on this clip. However, I do think that Richard G’s original statements were sound.

[alancarre]

She would've won the argument by simply answering him in arabic (though she certainly could not). That guy is a big faker, his accent is totally made up. Not an Iraqi by a long shot.

- Alan

[Barkhorn1x]

"Regime change is a matter for the Iraqi people."

Well how nice for the Iraqi people - who live in a Stalinist police state - and don't get to make that choice.

"Bombing and killing people will not bring Peace and Justice."

Oh crap - paging Doctor Feelgood. What kind of Pollyana Fantasy World does she live in?????? :rolleyes:


Barkhorn.

(Muhammed was very condescending - but he did have a valid point)

[Victor Danilchenko]

Barkhorn1x

Well how nice for the Iraqi people - who live in a Stalinist police state - and don't get to make that choice.And point me to one example where such, or similar, system was tranformed into a democracy by external application of force (Japan doesn't count, Hirohito cooperated with the democratization). I can point you to countless examples of such external impositions of political changes not working.

The point? Iraqi people may not have much of a choice now, but nothing in our understanding of history and politics indicates that conquering Iraq will make things better. look at Afghanistan -- one big despotic regime is replaced with a bunch of small despitic regimes, and little has changed for the people. What changes did occur, are sustained by continuous presence of US military force.

Oh crap - paging Doctor Feelgood. What kind of Pollyana Fantasy World does she live in?????? :rolleyes:one could ask you the same question. On what basis do you assume that this sort of social transformation we are talking about can be imposed by force from without, rather that having to be won in a slow and tortuous process of internal change?

[Drooper]

I just compased and excellent risposte....and then deleted it by accident. :mad:

As I was saying...

External application of force, as you put it, has been rarely used to oust a tyrant. It is usually the case that the rest of the world will just wring their hands, while the likes of Pinochet, Mengistu, Pol Pot, Amin, Mugabe (!!!!) carry on regardless.

The odd time when these types stray too far, action is taken and I can cite some examples of improved outcomes:

Germany - Hitler would have exterminated the entire German Jewish population, had he not tried to invade all of Europe.
Italy. Same as Germany.
Cambodia - finally Vietnam had enough of border incursions.

In those cases, the resident tyrant would have carried on regardless had they not caused external problems that upset other nations.


Maybe it is time to stop putting up with the likes of Saddam. Maybe there is a case to tell the likes of France that the UN should be used to bring these types of people to account, rather than find self serving ways to ignore the plight of others.

[iain]

The question of when you intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to overthrow its legitimate (though not democratic) government is an interesting one.

I think there is a good case that the International community should act to improve the lives of those living in such regimes and there will be cases where overthrowing the regime is the best way to achieve this.

In the Iraqi example it is clear that Saddam is a nasty tyrant. What is less clear is whether deposing him by force in this way will
improve the lives of the Iraqi people in the short or long term. It may do that but I see no compelling reason to think so.

If we are in the business of improving people's lives, it is also not clear to me how this is the most effective way to do it. A spent of several billion dollars will bring about a change of Government, though not on its own any improvements for the people. Further billions will be needed for that and even then it may not be enough. Maybe many more lives could be improved much more by spending that money differently.

[Drooper]

How will it improve lives?

Well, potentially:

There is the end of the threat of summary arrest, torture and murder. That's a pretty massive increase in welfare in my book.

The establishment of a market based economy (well, at least the end of the Ba'ath centrally planned economy). Let economics do the rest and welfare improves.

[shanek]

Well, I'll answer it.

"How, exactly, will leaving Saddam Hussein in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

It's an excellent question, but one which makes assumptions bordering on a false dichotomy. No, leaving Saddam in power is probably not the best way for Iraqis to have peace and justice. However, it's not so black-and-white as the implication that without Saddam we will have peace and justice, or at least more peace and justice than Iraq has now. Understand that there are plenty of Islamic fundamentalists who would set up a theocracy in Iraq that would make Saddam look like Gandhi.

In other words, Saddam is not the root of the problem, so taking action to depose Saddam will itself not do anything at all to ensure peace and justice in Iraq, and could potentially make things worse.

The other implication is that any country in the world with the military might should act to depose the government of a country if they think that doing so will promote peace and justice in that country. Leaving aside the fact that we don't exactly have the best track record in that area, the real crux of the matter is that we have to consider the blook that will be on our hands. When police pursue a suspect fleeing at high speed, they know the suspect is endangering lives and of course want to catch him, but they also know that if they pursue him at full speed they themselves will put lives at risk. Even if it means catching the suspect more quickly (thereby causing fewer people to be endangered by the suspect), they won't do it, because it just doesn't justify them endangering people themselves. Bush seems to lack this basic moral view.

Having not heard the show up to that point, I don't know if the girl made the claim that leaving Saddam in power would promote peace and justice in Iraq; if so, she was justifiably trashed. But if she didn't, and I'm guessing that this is the case, it's a question based on a false dichotomy and invalid assumptions.

[fsol]

Well flame me if you will but I thought the reason we were going in to take Saddam out was because he was a threat to us. Not to help out the Iraqi people. That argument has only been used since the US/UK administration realised that alot of people were opposed to war. And it is on the surface a good argument. It is very difficult to argue against. Because if you do you are immeadiatley accused of being uncaring etc. In reality it is nothing more than emotional blackmail.

So the answer to the question "How can leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?" would be " well, we are not going to war to promote peace and justice in Iraq."

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

I just compased and excellent risposte....and then deleted it by accident. :mad: Murphy must be anti-war. :D

External application of force, as you put it, has been rarely used to oust a tyrant.And never has it been successfully used to change the social climate of the country without additional sociopolitical factors (such as the local government's cooperation, or prior history of democracy).

Germany - Hitler would have exterminated the entire German Jewish population, had he not tried to invade all of Europe.
Italy. Same as Germany.Both of those countries had democratic governments before the tyrants came to power (Italy's culturally continuous democratic history goes as far back as Renaissance merchantile republics). Remember, I am talking about large-scale social changes here -- namely, people of the country actually accepting and practicing democracy, instead of simply making it a facade for 'same old, same old' order, as Iraqi nominal democracy currently is.

Cambodia - finally Vietnam had enough of border incursions.Khmer Rouge was, like Hitler, a temporary negative change in Cambodia, AFAIK; ousting them in effect largely restored older status quo of contitutional monarchy, didn't it? Has it really improved things in comparison to 1975?

In those cases, the resident tyrant would have carried on regardless had they not caused external problems that upset other nations.i am not speaking about individual tyrants, but about social changes. I can't think of any example where freedom was imposed on the people by force (which obviously excludes the cases where the people were previously free).

I am sorry if it looks like I am inventing ad-hoc restrictions -- I am not. I articulated the same point in detail in a different thread, and I simply didn't explicate my point enough here from the get-go.

What I am really saying is that democracy requires a social change, a change in how people see the world and themselves. Such a change cannot be imposed by force, it much happen from within. The most we can do is help, but simply overthrowing tyranny and imposing democracy in a country with no history of democracy, shows no indications of being a fruitiful approach. If we create a democratic government in a country that has no familiarity with democracy, chances are that this new democracy will simply turn out to be a sham, a facade. Real democracy -- the civic spirit of democracy -- cannot be created that way.

[Drooper]

I think you're just making up the rules as you go along.

[DrChinese]

Q: How can leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

A: It doesn't.

Q: What relevance is the first Question/Answer to the U.S. decision to invade Iraq?

A: None. Iraq is a sovereign country protected by international law, the same international law that protected Kuwait when it was invaded by an aggressor.

How hard was that?

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain
The question of when you intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to overthrow its legitimate (though not democratic) government is an interesting one.



Leaders like Saddam have no legitimate claim to sovereignty.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

I think you're just making up the rules as you go along.What a profoundly insightful reply on the topic of the historical role of external force in effecting societal change. :rolleyes:

And no, I really did make the same point previously -- see my posts in We must fight on... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=15493) thread.

[Skeptic]

And point me to one example where such, or similar, system was tranformed into a democracy by external application of force (Japan doesn't count, Hirohito cooperated with the democratization).

Japan DOES count; after all, the only reason Hirohito cooperated WAS because the US won the war. Of course, I can also show you Nazi Germany (it took a bit of force to get rid of Hitler), Fascist Italy, Vichy France, South Korea (only force kicked out the communists), Yugoslavia (Miloshevic was removed by force, I believe)... there probably are more examples I've forgotten at the moment.

Of course, even when external use of force is not the DIRECT way to replace a dictatorship, the external THREAT of force is the way to stop it from spreading over the rest of the globe, which then leave time for it to stagnate and collapse under its own weight. The Soviet Block only stopped in Berlin for fifty years after WWII because of the US threat to use nuclear weapons if they try to invade western Europe.

Come to think of it, I cannot think of ANY example of a dictatorial regime replace by a democratic one which was not, directly or indirectly, due to the "external application of force".

[Drooper]

No, I think it was a recognition of the futility of trying to matain one side of a debate against arguments like:

"All of those countries had democratic gorvernments at some time in the past so they don't count. Also they don't begin with the letter X and are not within the Arctic circle."

[originalgagster]

there are two completely different questions here.

1) Does Saddam Hussein deserve to stay in power?

2) Should the US attack Iraq?

Part of the problem is that most right wingers are unable to separate these two questions. Almost everyone would answer yes to question 1, but question 2 would yield very different answers.

I dont know why the peace activist would have any problems answering such a question - the answer is clearly none whatsoever.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by originalgagster
there are two completely different questions here.

1) Does Saddam Hussein deserve to stay in power?

2) Should the US attack Iraq?

Part of the problem is that most right wingers are unable to separate these two questions. Almost everyone would answer yes to question 1, but question 2 would yield very different answers.

I dont know why the peace activist would have any problems answering such a question - the answer is clearly none whatsoever.

1. No But he'll soon be getting exactly what he deserves.
2. Yes! It's a Hallmark moment...; "When we show that we care enough to send the very best!"

Sic Semper Tyrannis

-zilla

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

Japan DOES count; after all, the only reason Hirohito cooperated WAS because the US won the war.No, it doesn't count -- we got the sort of cooperation from hirohito that we would never get out of Saddam.

japan was a warrior culture which was beaten at its own game. A very special set of cultural factors at play there.

Of course, I can also show you Nazi Germany (it took a bit of force to get rid of Hitler), Fascist Italy, Vichy France,All of which had democracy before tyrants came into power, and thus had a social history of living in a democratic society. Why don't you actually read what i wrote?

South Korea (only force kicked out the communists), Yugoslavia (Miloshevic was removed by force, I believe)... there probably are more examples I've forgotten at the moment.if they are as irrelevant as the examples you brough tup, then don't bother with them.

The Soviet Block only stopped in Berlin for fifty years after WWII because of the US threat to use nuclear weapons if they try to invade western Europe.Ummm... and this is relevant -- how?..

Come to think of it, I cannot think of ANY example of a dictatorial regime replace by a democratic one which was not, directly or indirectly, due to the "external application of force".Try USSR. or Chile. or USA, for that matter. ;rolleyes:

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

No, I think it was a recognition of the futility of trying to matain one side of a debate against arguments like:

"All of those countries had democratic gorvernments at some time in the past so they don't count. Also they don't begin with the letter X and are not within the Arctic circle." I guess being a moron is easier than admitting that you are wrong...

having a history of democracy is directly relevant -- that's my whole *********** point, that democratic society cannot be created by external force; but having history of democracy creastes fertile ground for the new democratic society. And as I said, japan was a special and unique case. iraq is no japan, and Saddam is no Hirohito.

[voidx]

I think fsol has a point. The whole concept of liberating the Iraqi people has perhaps been an emotional distraction. This is not a clear cut issue. The reasons leading up to this event are very broad. 9/11 figures prominently, the perhaps regret of not disposing Saddam during the first Gulf War campaign, to some an interest in stabalizing control of Iraqi oil. And lately also as an emotional cry out to help the plight of the Iraqi people and how they suffer under Saddam's regime. The people arguing for the war have stated their case for the most part, saying that it is necessary to dispose of Saddam before him and his regime gain nuclear, or other biological weapons capability, therefore giving them leverage over the US such as many see Korea as having. They also argue that Saddam cannot simply be left in power, that he is massacuring people, that we must do something. The supposed Iraqi in the radio clip did make one good point I think. To leave Saddam in power is a guarantee of continued oppression, to remove him perhaps gives a small hope of some form of government forming in Iraq that is less oppressive. Is that reason alone enough to go to war? Well that's hard to say. Does the above reason combined with the fact that potentially we are stopping Saddam's regime from gaining WOMD capalities, and also potentially stabalizing the price and flow of oil from Iraq, do all these factors combined make a good case for going to war? Again, not black and white, and not easy to say.

What I'd like to hear is some alternatives to not disposing Saddam. Partly for my own information, and as a backup to people arguing against open conflict. If Bush's plan is not a viable one, what are some viable alternatives? I realize as I ask this that no one can give me a clear cut alternative because every one of them will have their potential weak points, and will certainly hinge on unknowns (the same problem exists for those arguing for disposing Saddam and the potentially, but ultimately unknown result of that action). The problem becomes as well, and I think many people overlook it, is how many chances do you give him, how many times do you fall back on a political and diplomatic process that is not working, and in essence cannot work because Saddam has no fear of opposing it? Do we do nothing?

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Japan DOES count; after all, the only reason Hirohito cooperated WAS because the US won the war. Of course, I can also show you Nazi Germany (it took a bit of force to get rid of Hitler), Fascist Italy, Vichy France, South Korea (only force kicked out the communists), Yugoslavia (Miloshevic was removed by force, I believe)... there probably are more examples I've forgotten at the moment.

You choose some really poor examples. Yugoslavia was not a dictatorship, Milosevic was democratically elected. South Korea is not an example of a country which was transformed from dictatorship to democracy by external force. The communists were only very temporarily in charge of S. Korea. Vichy France was a country where a population used to democracy had tyranny forced on them for a short period. In Italy democracy had been the norm before fascism. Same with nazi Germany.



Originally posted by Skeptic
Come to think of it, I cannot think of ANY example of a dictatorial regime replace by a democratic one which was not, directly or indirectly, due to the "external application of force".

The Soviet Union and practically the whole of Eastern Europe?

[voidx]

Also people have to realize one small thing about trying to parallel current day conflicts, with that of WWII, or even WWI. WWII in particular was a unique and global conflict, on a scale never witnessed before, or since. The loss of life, both military and civilian was on such a scale that it was able to kickstart revolution and social change in many areas in its aftermath which would not have been possible in any smaller or non-global conflict. WWII left the entire world in a financial, political, and emotional mess, and in such an environment, social changes were potentially much more likely. A localized conflict does not carry that same potential for social change. The results of global external force against Germany, do not translate directly at all to results of US/British/Australian external force against Iraq.

[Skeptic]

(Sigh....)

So I was challanged to give "one example" of countries that turned into a democracy by external force.

I give four or five.

The reply? A long dissertation on why none of those examples "really count"--including the case of Nazi Germany becoming a democratic country!

(shrug)

No wonder you "can't find any examples" of such countries, in that case.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Barkhorn1x

And point me to one example where such, or similar, system was tranformed into a democracy by external application of force (Japan doesn't count, Hirohito cooperated with the democratization). I can point you to countless examples of such external impositions of political changes not working.


Germany IS a valid example, as their democratic interlude (Wiemar Republic circa 1919 to 1933) was only 14 years - and was easily replaced by a dictator. Certainly you can't sit there and claim that these 14 years wiped out the autocracy of the past 200 or were unaffected by the brutality of the next 12. And you must admit that the post war era - on the whole - was a rousing success for West Germany.


The point? Iraqi people may not have much of a choice now, but nothing in our understanding of history and politics indicates that conquering Iraq will make things better. look at Afghanistan -- one big despotic regime is replaced with a bunch of small despitic regimes, and little has changed for the people. What changes did occur, are sustained by continuous presence of US military force.

No Victor they have NO choice now and I wonder about your understanding of the situation in Afghanistan - as the people there are better off than they were under the Taliban. That these changes are "sustained by continuous presence of US military force" is a given and completly understandable at this point in the process


one could ask you the same question. On what basis do you assume that this sort of social transformation we are talking about can be imposed by force from without, rather that having to be won in a slow and tortuous process of internal change?

I was commenting on Dim Girls grating naiveté - as dropping bombs on Iraq (for a short time) WILL in fact bring a modicum of peace and justice to their lives.

I am under no illusions that "this sort of social transformation" you are talking about will be a slow and costly one. Still, now that you've brought it up, IMO the cost of doing nothing (Recipe Le France) would be far greater.

Barkhorn.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

So I was challanged to give "one example" of countries that turned into a democracy by external force.I also made very clear that I didn't include countries which already had democracy in the past. You would have done much better if you actually kept your answers on-topic.

The reply? A long dissertation on why none of those examples "really count"--including the case of Nazi Germany becoming a democratic country!Are you really that dumb? the examples you gave had democracy in the past (very recent past, too) -- the societies were already prepared to accept democracy, which was why it worked (japan being the exception I already explained).

Stop acting like a moron. the examples you gave had nothing to do with my point.

No wonder you "can't find any examples" of such countries, in that case.No wonder you can't present support for your position without resorting to blatant strawman-building!

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Skeptic

I also made very clear that I didn't include countries which already had democracy in the past. You would have done much better if you actually kept your answers on-topic.


I think you have lost this argument. If you do not count Japan because it cooperated, then you are just changing the rules to fit your view.

You say Saddam will not cooperate like Hirohito did, but this is a ridiculous argument. We are not asking for Saddam's cooperation. We are asking for his removal. Ideally, there will be no Saddam remaining to interfere with the establishment of a true democracy.

You cannot just redefine everything to fit your argument and then call your opponent stupid because he has not kept up on the changing rules. It destroys your argument.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Drooper being a moron is easier than admitting that you are wrong...

I'll just have to take your word on that.

[Victor Danilchenko]

tjwojo

I think you have lost this argument. If you do not count Japan because it cooperated, then you are just changing the rules to fit your view.First of all, I didn't change the rules -- I specifically excluded japan from the get-go, for reasons I explained. Secondly, japanese government cooperatiing kinda discombobulated the "force from without" premise.

You say Saddam will not cooperate like Hirohito did, but this is a ridiculous argument. We are not asking for Saddam's cooperation. We are asking for his removal.My point exactly. Hirohito's cooperation (his sincere cooperation) is arguably the reason why japanese democratization succeeded; and the reason why we got this sort of cooperation is, IMO, the fact that Japan was a warrior culture led by rulers whose ideology compelled them to submit to the superior opponent.

So yes, the fact that we don't expect nor seek Saddam's cooperation is IMO just one more reason why Iraqi conversion to democracy will fail. Even if we did seek Saddam's cooperation, it would still be a doomed enterprise -- as I said, Saddam is no Hirohito, and Iraq is no Japan.

Ideally, there will be no Saddam remaining to interfere with the establishment of a true democracy.No, there will simply be people who will hand the power to the next warlord who comes along. You don't get a democratic society by a mere legislative act at the end of war.

You cannot just redefine everything to fit your argument and then call your opponent stupid because he has not kept up on the changing rules. It destroys your argument.i didn't redefine anything -- i excluded Japan since my very first post in this thread; I also excluded the countries with democratic histories, which exclusion Skeptic similarly ignored (and i apologized for not making the latter condition clear from the beginning, but I did prove that I stated the same condition earlier in a different thread).

There was no issue of 'keeping up'; not for Skeptic certainly, as all the conditions were already in place by the time he jumped in. You can read and keep track of post order, can't you?..

You have absolutely no ground to accuse me of changing the rules ad-hoc; not if you wish to be honest, at any rate.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

I'll just have to take your word on that.Don't take my word for it -- you live that principle. When you take my clearly-stated and defended restrictions (no countries with democratic history, Japan is an exception) and lie about them, trying to make it seem as if i invent unjustifiable ad-hoc limitations, you are being a dishonest moron. Them's the facts.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Skeptic:
Come to think of it, I cannot think of ANY example of a dictatorial regime replace by a democratic one which was not, directly or indirectly, due to the "external application of force".

I think Franco's Spain is the exception that proves the rule in this case.

Originally posted by Original Gagster:
The Soviet Union and practically the whole of Eastern Europe?

Star Wars? Increased military spending under Reagan?

Originally posted by Barkhorn1X:
Germany IS a valid example, as their democratic interlude (Wiemar Republic circa 1919 to 1933) was only 14 years - and was easily replaced by a dictator.

True. Wilhelmine Germany was a totalitarian, militaristic regime, where effective power was in the hands of the Kaiser. The Weimar Republic was held in contempt by powerful interests such as the military, who ultimately welcomed the rise of the Nazis. In fact Hitler was able to manipulate the flawed apparatus of the Weimar Republic to declare himself Fuhrer in a quasi-legal fashion. What is remarkable about modern day Germany is it's pacifism, something that would have been unimaginable a hundred years ago.

Neither was democracy very secure in France. Up until 1940 France had violent upheaval and revolution every generation. Even after that it was threatened with civil war during the Algeria crisis.

Even a cursory glance at some of the actions of the EU show that the spirit of democracy isn't so rooted in Europe as you might think.

[jj]

Originally posted by Richard G
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

Very telling. If you really have a conviction about something you should be able to answer a simple question about those convictions. Anyone who can't should SHUT UP.

Your position is repugnant. Only those who meet your standard of eloquence or logic are allowed to speak out? Really?

As to the question: I reply with another: How will taking Saddam out increase the welfare of the world?

I submit that there is worse than Saddam Hussien waiting in the wings.

This is not necessarily a reason to leave him stand.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Star Wars? Increased military spending under Reagan?



It must have take quite a leap of lateral thinking to imagine that the democratization of eastern europe was a direct result of Reagans star wars program.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

True. Wilhelmine Germany was a totalitarian, militaristic regime, where effective power was in the hands of the Kaiser. The Weimar Republic was held in contempt by powerful interests such as the military, who ultimately welcomed the rise of the Nazis. In fact Hitler was able to manipulate the flawed apparatus of the Weimar Republic to declare himself Fuhrer in a quasi-legal fashion. What is remarkable about modern day Germany is it's pacifism, something that would have been unimaginable a hundred years ago.

Neither was democracy very secure in France. Up until 1940 France had violent upheaval and revolution every generation. Even after that it was threatened with civil war during the Algeria crisis.

Even a cursory glance at some of the actions of the EU show that the spirit of democracy isn't so rooted in Europe as you might think.

None of this is inconsistent with the view that there was a strong precedent for democracy within Germany and France.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psted by originalgagster:
It must have take quite a leap of lateral thinking to imagine that the democratization of eastern europe was a direct result of Reagans star wars program.

My bad. Obviously the Soviets upped and decided "Seventy years of communism, what were we thinking! Lets dismantle our empire in Eastern Europe right away. While we're at it, lets dismantle the Soviet Union full stop!" Just like that.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally psted by originalgagster:


My bad. Obviously the Soviets upped and decided "Seventy years of communism, what were we thinking! Lets dismantle our empire in Eastern Europe right away. While we're at it, lets dismantle the Soviet Union full stop!" Just like that.

You may be closer to the truth than you think. A nice chap named Gorbachev had something to do with it i believe.

[jj]

Originally posted by originalgagster


It must have take quite a leap of lateral thinking to imagine that the democratization of eastern europe was a direct result of Reagans star wars program.

It did quite literally drive their system into economic failure.

Given that, that's not such a reach, I think.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by jj


It did quite literally drive their system into economic failure.

Given that, that's not such a reach, I think.

So you believe that the main reason communism failed is because the US forced the Soviets to spend billions of dollars above themselves on nuclear weapons?
If this is true, perhaps communism is a more viable system than some people like to admit. Also what does it say about the morality of the US?

[Denise]

On a lighter note. Did anyone watch the Iraqi ambassador to the UN just now at his news conference? That has to be the worse combover I have ever seen.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

My bad. Obviously the Soviets upped and decided "Seventy years of communism, what were we thinking! Lets dismantle our empire in Eastern Europe right away. While we're at it, lets dismantle the Soviet Union full stop!" Just like that.Pretty close, yes. It's been getting clear for a while that USSR can't keep the military spendings tp stay on par with USA -- but that fact alone did not force the collapse of communism, it merely necessitated that USSR wouldn't be able to maintain its superpower status for long.

What really happened is that, after decades of being told about how free we are, people more and more started realizing that it just ain't so. USSR has finally ripened from a largely agricultural state, with the accompanying narrowness of vision, to a culturally sophisticated and pervasively modern (modern culturally) society. Personality cults simply became passe, and the economic promise of communism was clearly unreachable. the final decision, made by the government (Gorbachev to be precise -- but he was knowingly elected by the gerontocratic Politburo, as well as the two previous reformers, Chernenko and Andropov) was to slowly start opening the society up. Once Glasnost set in, the collapse of the Soviet empire was imminent.

So no, USSR wasn't forced to abandon totalitarianism; rather, it culturally matured enough to both understand and want democracy, and the government then just did the self-evident thing. Kinda like what China is doing now (and gosh darn, compare the timeframes!), but more rapidly and with less control. China learned from it, I imagine...

next thing you know, you'll be claiming that US won WWII...

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by originalgagster:
So you believe that the main reason communism failed is because the US forced the Soviets to spend billions of dollars above themselves on nuclear weapons?

Yes, billions they didn't have because of their flawed economic policies.

If this is true, perhaps communism is a more viable system than some people like to admit. Also what does it say about the morality of the US?

Of course it is. North Korea has a standard of living on a par with South Korea. Morality? Yes, it was as decididly immoral of the free world to stand up to communism as it was immoral of Winston Churchill not to kow-tow to the Nazis.

Pretty close, yes. It's been getting clear for a while that USSR can't keep the military spendings tp stay on par with USA -- but that fact alone did not force the collapse of communism, it merely necessitated that USSR wouldn't be able to maintain its superpower status for long.

The USSR wasn't able to maintain it's outright existance, never mind it's superpower status, full stop.

So no, USSR wasn't forced to abandon totalitarianism; rather, it culturally matured enough to both understand and want democracy, and the government then just did the self-evident thing. Kinda like what China is doing now (and gosh darn, compare the timeframes!), but more rapidly and with less control. China learned from it, I imagine...

I find it hard to believe that this would have happened had the free world continued it's policy of containment and detente. I'm sure the soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 would have left even the dimmest individuals in Eastern Europe under no illusions as to their lack of freedom. Ditto the construction of the Iron Curtain.

next thing you know, you'll be claiming that US won WWII...

On the Western front, yes. Britain and the Commonwealth wouldn't have been capable of mounting a seaborne invasion of the continent on their own. It's quite probable that the Russians would have defeated the Germans on their own, but the Iron curtain would have gone up somewhere of the west coast of Ireland in that case.

[Victor Danilchenko]

BTW, about Germany...

germany is an interesting case. You see, Weimer Republic and Hitler is exactly my "nightmare scenario" of what happens when you try to force democracy on people who are not ready for it. Allies tried this after WWI, and Hitler was elected less than two decades after.

As I said, if you try to force a democracy on the people who are not ready for it, they will simply elect themselves a tyrant. If anything, the history of Weimar Republic should be a warning to us against going into Iraq and forcibly setting up a democracy there.

So, I will happily concede that democracy was successfully forced on Germany, if you will concede that Hitler is the sort of outcome we can expect from such an act...

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

The USSR wasn't able to maintain it's outright existance, never mind it's superpower status, full stop.********. USSR's existence was doing just fine, it's the attempts to keep up with USA that were a problem. There were no factors necessitating the collapse of Soviet government.

I find it hard to believe that this would have happened had the free world continued it's policy of containment and detente.Well, don't. The reforms had been ripening for a while. Reagan announced Star Wars in 1983, but Andropov was elected as General Secretary in 1982, and proclaimed the goal of economic reform less that two weeks after, explicitly listing economic experimentation with other countries' systems (i.e. introducing market elements into economy) as one of the methods of the said reform. No matter how you slice it, the economic pressure from Star Wars could not possibly have been felt that early on.

The problem with "ugly americans", Shane, is that they too often substitute wishful jingoistic thinking for knowledge of history. One of the problems, at any rate.

I'm sure the soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 would have left even the dimmest individuals in Eastern Europe under no illusions as to their lack of freedom. Ditto the construction of the Iron Curtain.You'd be surprised at how effetive propaganda can be, especially in the sort of cultural climate that existing in USSR in the first half of the 20th century. besides, the invations of Hungary and Czechoslovakia disillusioned hungarians and czechs and slovaks, not the soviet population, since the latter weren't the ones invaded.

On the Western front, yes. Britain and the Commonwealth wouldn't have been capable of mounting a seaborne invasion of the continent on their own. It's quite probable that the Russians would have defeated the Germans on their own, but the Iron curtain would have gone up somewhere of the west coast of Ireland in that case.True, and true. At least you aren't like the idiots who proclaim that USA won WWII... that's a relief.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
BTW, about Germany...

germany is an interesting case. You see, Weimer Republic and Hitler is exactly my "nightmare scenario" of what happens when you try to force democracy on people who are not ready for it. Allies tried this after WWI, and Hitler was elected less than two decades after.

As I said, if you try to force a democracy on the people who are not ready for it, they will simply elect themselves a tyrant. If anything, the history of Weimar Republic should be a warning to us against going into Iraq and forcibly setting up a democracy there.

So, I will happily concede that democracy was successfully forced on Germany, if you will concede that Hitler is the sort of outcome we can expect from such an act...

Well I'm sure this will be exactly the case in Iraq IF;
1. The US/UN imposes the Treaty of Versailles
2. The US/UN demands extortionist war reparations - "squeeze 'em until the pips squeak"
3. The US/UN allows Iraq to repudiate agreements and remilitarize beyond what is reasonably prudent for defense.
;)

Victor - you are NOT dealing w/ apples to apples here – sorry.

Barkhorn.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Yes, billions they didn't have because of their flawed economic policies.

So is it billions they didnt have because of their flawed economic policies, or billions they didnt have because of Reagans arms policies? Please make your mind up.




Of course it is. North Korea has a standard of living on a par with South Korea.

You know perfectly well that North Korea's economy has been crippled by years of draconian sanctions.




Morality? Yes, it was as decididly immoral of the free world to stand up to communism as it was immoral of Winston Churchill not to kow-tow to the Nazis.

What is the point of this comparison?

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Try to answer the question yourself: "How can leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

-Ben

Which has what to do with American military intervention. We aren't supposed to be here to promote peace and justice overseas. We are here to promote American interest and safeguard America from attack. Promoting peace and justice in Iraq is the responsiblity of the Iraqis. If they want peace and justice, then they should get up and take it. And don't tell me they can't, that Hussein's people have all of the guns. We fought for peace and justince in America once, Britain has successfully done it, even France, the butt of surrender jokes threw out a repressive regime. As a matter of fact, pretty much every country in which peace and justice reign, it does so because those countries citizens stood up and said we won't take any more crap.
The real question we should be asking is not "How leaving Saddam in power promotes peace and justince in iraq", since we know that it goes without saying it won't. The question we need to ask is how invading Iraq and toppling the Hussein regime serves America's interests? How does it make us safer, since Iraq does not have the military capability to stirke at us across the ocean, is only linked to terrorism through the most flimsy of evidence. How does removing Saddam lessen the threat of radical Islam, since Iraq is a secular state. Saddam pays little more than lip service to Islam (radical or otherwise) and keeps a firm grasp of secular power.
I hope this was eloquent enough for you.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Barkhorn1x

Well I'm sure this will be exactly the case in Iraq IF;
1. The US/UN imposes the Treaty of Versailles
2. The US/UN demands extortionist war reparations - "squeeze 'em until the pips squeak"
3. The US/UN allows Iraq to repudiate agreements and remilitarize beyond what is reasonably prudent for defense.
;)

Victor - you are NOT dealing w/ apples to apples here – sorry.That's true; Iraq is not post-WWI Germany, and won't be handled as such. Hitler's rise to power is my worst-case scenario, and also an answer to those who claim that democracy was successfully imposed in Germany by force (yes, it was forcibly imposed, and look how it played out).

Now mind you, I am not saying that not forcing democracy on Iraq will necessarily lead to a good outcome; but rather that we have no reason to believe that doing so will result in a good outcome.

As far as I am concerned, trying to occupy Iraq and create democracy there will be about as effective as promoting democracy in iraq, as War on Drugs has been at reducing drug abuse. In both cases, the obvious reaction ("let's occupy Iraq and create a democracy there" -- "let's ban drugs') is simply not a viable way of achieving the stated goal (promoting Iraqi democracy and reducing drug abuse, respectively).

[Shane Costello]

Originally poted by Victor Danilchenko:
********. USSR's existence was doing just fine, it's the attempts to keep up with USA that were a problem. There were no factors necessitating the collapse of Soviet government.

Which is more or less my point. If the West had continued to follow a policy of containment towards the Soviet Union it mightn't have collapsed.

Well, don't. The reforms had been ripening for a while. Reagan announced Star Wars in 1983, but Andropov was elected as General Secretary in 1982, and proclaimed the goal of economic reform less that two weeks after, explicitly listing economic experimentation with other countries' systems (i.e. introducing market elements into economy) as one of the methods of the said reform. No matter how you slice it, the economic pressure from Star Wars could not possibly have been felt that early on.

The Soviet Union didn't collapse until 1991. The economic reforms planned weren't that radical a departure, Lenin's "New Economic Policy" envisaged some small scale market elements in the centrally planned economy. The overall aim of the Soviet ruling classes was not the dismantling of communism, which was my original point.

You'd be surprised at how effetive propaganda can be, especially in the sort of cultural climate that existing in USSR in the first half of the 20th century. besides, the invations of Hungary and Czechoslovakia disillusioned hungarians and czechs and slovaks, not the soviet population, since the latter weren't the ones invaded.

I don't doubt it. What it does establish is that communism needed a totalitarian police state to survive. Without that it crumbled.

Originally posted by originalgagster:
So is it billions they didnt have because of their flawed economic policies, or billions they didnt have because of Reagans arms policies? Please make your mind up.

Due to their flawed economic policies, the Soviets didn't have the capacity to compete with Reagans rearmament policies. Simple enough?

You know perfectly well that North Korea's economy has been crippled by years of draconian sanctions.

Sure, and being ruled by a clapped out marxist dynasty has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

What is the point of this comparison?

You were the one who questioned the morality of American defence policy in the '80s. Would you also question the morality of Churchill's views (correct as it turned out) about rearmament in the 1930's in the face of Nazism?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Sure, we all see/hear them all the time. They all disagree with us. Morons. Every one of them.

Their freedom of speech is what it's all about.

Saying that they should SHUT UP is wrong. Ask them what they really mean. Tell them that that's idiotic. Ask them to defend their viewpoints. To explain.

Someone would say that you Richard, is 'babbling uninformed and completely ignorant of what you are talking about'.

Isn't it great to have the freedom to keep on 'babbling' instead of being told to shut up? :confused: I agree Bjorn though I understand the sentiments of Ben.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

Which is more or less my point. If the West had continued to follow a policy of containment towards the Soviet Union it mightn't have collapsed.As i already showed, Politburo was gearing up for reform before the Star Wars pressure could be felt.

The Soviet Union didn't collapse until 1991.that's not the point. the point is that the need for economic reform, the need which you claim came about because of Star Wars, was recognized before Star Wars went into effect. Therefore, Star Wars couldn't have possibly caused the collapse of USSR, as the one leverage point that the StarWars could stress -- economics -- was already being stressed anyway. USSR could have continued in diminished economic status (i.e. non-superpower), allowing the powers that be to preserve their privileged position -- but the government itself decided to reform the country.

In short, Star Wars is a red herring.

The economic reforms planned weren't that radical a departure, Lenin's "New Economic Policy" envisaged some small scale market elements in the centrally planned economy. The overall aim of the Soviet ruling classes was not the dismantling of communism, which was my original point.And Star Wars did virtually nothing to push the dismantling of communism along. Your point was that StarWars broke USSR by forcing the collapse of its economy -- but as i have demonstrated, USSR economy was recognized by the powers that be to be troubled, before Star Wars happened.

Remember, you claimed that it was the economic pressure from Star Wars that was the culprit of the Soviet collapse -- but as i have demonstrated, the economic pressure frfom StarWars was superflous.

Due to their flawed economic policies, the Soviets didn't have the capacity to compete with Reagans rearmament policies. Simple enough?That is true, but it's besides th epoint, the flaws of planned economy were recognized by the Soviets before StarWars went into effect, and were being addressed before StarWars went into effect. StarWars' economic pressure was superflous.

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Shane Costello

Due to their flawed economic policies, the Soviets didn't have the capacity to compete with Reagans rearmament policies. Simple enough?

Now you are espousing a position we can almost agree on. It still hasn't been proven that economic failure was the reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union, however. In fact there isn't really any evidence for that at all.

The collapse of the Soviet Union is really down to the policies of Gorbachev and the unstoppable deisre for basic freedoms which they ignited in the Soviet people.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Sure, and being ruled by a clapped out marxist dynasty has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

I never said that. I just said that sanctions are a huge factor in North Korean poverty.


Originally posted by Shane Costello
You were the one who questioned the morality of American defence policy in the '80s. Would you also question the morality of Churchill's views (correct as it turned out) about rearmament in the 1930's in the face of Nazism?

The comparison is trite. There is a huge difference between building weapons to deter attack from an aggresive dictator and escalating an arms race when you are in no imminent danger with the sole aim of forcing another country into bankruptcy.