Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Orwell]

As to North Korea, they do exactly what China wants them to do in my opinion. Oppressive to their own, sabre rattling to the rest, but only 'seemingly' mad.

Russia and China has substantially the same relation with Syria.

[Eldorion]

I swerve by religious oaths. Even though I'm not religious. It's a form. The genuimness of what your oathing is what's important.

Religious oaths are not uncommon in the U.S. either, but they are not required. I don't know how it works in Australia, but in America you're allowed to swear non-religiously or to simply affirm if (like Quakers) you have a moral or religious opposition to the idea of oaths. There is no requirement to believe in or defer to any religion.

No. Why would I need to. I know yopur mentality by now, Eldo.

Stuff like this is what makes me question whether you're being serious. I generally think that if someone cares about having a meaningful conversation, then they'd approach the topic with an open mind (you may have realized that I didn't write the article I linked to, so my mindset has zero bearing on it).

Should read "as Iran is actually a threat..."

And your evidence/reasoning for this statement is...?

Gotta break an egg or two to make an omlette.

Not only is this an appalling, disgusting way to refer to the death and suffering of millions of people, it ignores the fact that the magic "invasion --> democracy" formula does not work. So those millions of deaths are for nothing. The idea that you can invade a country and force them to become a functioning democracy is simplistic and factually incorrect, no matter how much it appeals to our inner child (the one who wants their parents to just MAKE things right through sheer force of will).

There is much of your silliness to dismantle -- but the bit I enlarged above. Yes. Weak Democracies. Soft-spined Democracies. The ones that allow Evil to grow until the pimple becomes a plague. Right you are.

And do you expect a recently-invaded, destabilized, and newly-democratic country to have anything but weak political institutions?

Are you sure I'm the naive one? Talk to anyone in Germany during Hitler's rise (the ones who kept their heads down and only whispered their fears in the dark) and you'll see why Democracies need to be fair dinkum against Dictators - and early on, not when they get entrenched in their power.

If I talked to anyone in Germany during Hitler's rise to power then, statistically speaking, I would talk to someone who supported Hitler. The ones who disliked Hitler were in a minority (recall that Hitler was democratically electedi n the 1930s). That's one of the problems with democracies, particularly democracies that just lost a war and are going through economic turmoil, that I've been pointing out.

If the Iranians are making a Bomb, I say blow up the factory. Yes, that's my actual view. There will be an Iranian Spring sooner or later --- I don't want a nutter with a Bomb to be getting desperate.

I don't want "a nutter with a Bomb" getting desperate, but this scenario is not as likely as you imply. There are also many other potential horrible scenarios, and by focusing solely on "OMG nukes!!1!1" one fails to take into account the bigger picture.

[Eldorion]

You can't just magically replace one system with another, it takes time, and the aftermath of an invasion doesn't allow the time needed. Democracy has to grow from within.

Agreed. Unfortunately, that seems to have been the cornerstone of George W. Bush's policy in 2003. It also appears to be what Orwell is advocating. How anyone could have watched the news for the past 10 years and still think this is a good idea is utterly beyond me, though.

Ahmadinejad. Talks a big game, no real power. I think the clerics just like having someone saying all the chest-puffing stuff that they feel is below their dignity to spout.

Fair point. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as I don't trust the clerics either. However, I think that just reading Ahmadinejad's rants gives a misleading picture of Iran's actual situation.

[Orwell]

Stuff like this is what makes me question whether you're being serious. I generally think that if someone cares about having a meaningful conversation, then they'd approach the topic with an open mind (you may have realized that I didn't write the article I linked to, so my mindset has zero bearing on it).

I just assumed if you agreed with it, I wouldn't, and so I was just saving some precious time.

Should read "as Iran is actually a threat..."

And your evidence/reasoning for this statement is...?

I have a fine eye for nutcases.

Not only is this an appalling, disgusting way to refer to the death and suffering of millions of people, it ignores the fact that the magic "invasion --> democracy" formula does not work. So those millions of deaths are for nothing. The idea that you can invade a country and force them to become a functioning democracy is simplistic and factually incorrect, no matter how much it appeals to our inner child (the one who wants their parents to just MAKE things right through sheer force of will).

Don't be such a milksop. Do you really believe that most people in Irak don't want to enjoy the 'freedoms' you enjoy in a Western Democracy? They have been given an opportunity to build the Democracy of their choice.

And do you expect a recently-invaded, destabilized, and newly-democratic country to have anything but weak political institutions?

Gotta start somewhere. Just because something is hard and takes time doesn't mean you don't do it.

If I talked to anyone in Germany during Hitler's rise to power then, statistically speaking, I would talk to someone who supported Hitler. The ones who disliked Hitler were in a minority (recall that Hitler was democratically electedi n the 1930s). That's one of the problems with democracies, particularly democracies that just lost a war and are going through economic turmoil, that I've been pointing out.

You are kidding, aren't you? Remember the Black Shirts? (Or was it Brown?) A bit like a Referendum in Syria. It was dangerous to voice a view that you did not agree with Hitler.

I don't want "a nutter with a Bomb" getting desperate, but this scenario is not as likely as you imply. There are also many other potential horrible scenarios, and by focusing solely on "OMG nukes!!1!1" one fails to take into account the bigger picture.

I am focusing on 'nuts with nukes", Eldo.

[Eldorion]

This is ridiculous. If there is anyone who is interested in having a historically literate conversation with an open mind, then I'm all for it. But I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall in the hopes of convincing someone of something they don't want to believe because it's doesn't mesh with a simplistic, feel-good worldview. Every time I make a post, Orwell, you come back with blanket denials and rejections of everything without bothering to give a meaningful response. It's just "you're wrong, I'm right" with snark and insults on the side. I'm done trying to have a productive or respectful conversation with someone who doesn't want to have one.

[Orwell]

I'm done with this thread for now. If there is anyone who is interested in having a historically literate conversation with an open mind, then I'm all for it. But I'm not going to keep banging my head against a brick wall in the hopes of convincing someone of something they don't want to believe because it's doesn't mesh with a simplistic, feel-good worldview.

A bit condescending, Eldo? I offer some contrary points and not only do you belittle me but you go to water as well. (Is that a conundrum of sorts?) If you want to discuss a subject expect opposing views. Be a politician if you will and seek to undermine the opposing view/s with childish put-downs, but you get nowhere. I've been a Union Shop Steward in the past - I'm familiar with the 'íf you can't fight an argument face on' then put down your opponent. It is a strategy that works with some - but I don't think it will wash with the folk who come here. Go on then. You go run away. See, I can seek to belittle you without even attempting to address your points too! Cheap debating in my opinion though.

[Eldorion]

Do you really expect me to take you seriously when you post crap like "I have a fine eye for nutcases"? That's not an "opposing view", it's utterly meaningless. Not to mention that the "childish put-downs" strategy you just described is exactly what you have been doing over the last two pages of this thread.

[Orwell]

Do you really expect me to take you seriously when you post crap like "I have a fine eye for nutcases"? That's not an "opposing view", it's utterly meaningless.

I watch TV and read newspapers, Eldo - and books - just like you. The man is a psychopath - which comes under the heading 'mad' as far as I can tell. And Khameni is madder still.

[Eldorion]

I'm familiar with the 'íf you can't fight an argument face on' then put down your opponent. It is a strategy that works with some - but I don't think it will wash with the folk who come here. Go on then. You go run away. See, I can seek to belittle you without even attempting to address your points too! Cheap debating in my opinion though.

I specifically said that I was sick of the flat denials and insults, not of disagreement in general. I raise historical points such as the fact that unstable democracies have numerous social and political issues, and I mentioned 1930s Germany as an example. Your response to that was to ask if I thought the Iranian people don't want Western freedoms. That's not a response to the point I was making, though. Regardless of what people want, newly democratizing countries in the situation Iran would be in tend to devolve into chaos, which increases the likelihood of the ultimately resultant government being tyrranical. But that's not a point you chose to respond to. After having this happen back-and-forth for several rounds (along with the insults: intelligentsia, milksop, etc.) I got sick of it. And then you misrepresent what I said and throw in more insults for good measure.

[Orwell]

I'm tired of your dishonesty.

No dishonesty - serious views with a leaven of humour.

I specifically said that I was sick of the flat denials and insults, not of disagreement in general.

Good. I can't recall any flat denials or actual insults - though a few pointed jokes from me, meant about a quarter to a fifth seriously.

I raise historical points such as the fact that unstable democracies have numerous social and political issues, and I mentioned 1930s Germany as an example. Your response to that was to ask if I thought the Iranian people wanted Western freedoms.

Well, to clarify, I agree with you. But on top of that I think the Iranian people have to 'work' toward'having Western Freedoms. Where am I insulting you there - or not addressing your point?

That's not a response to the point I was making, though.

It was -- see my immediately preceding response.

Regardless of what people want, newly democratizing countries in the situation Iran would be in tend to devolve into chaos, which increases the likelihood of the ultimately resultant government being tyrranical.

There is a danger of that happening, yes. A risk worth taking --- in my view.

But that's not a point you chose to respond to.

In your mind, not mine. I did respond.

After having this happen back-and-forth for several rounds (along with all your insults: intelligentsia, milksop, etc.) I got sick of it. And then you lie about what I said and throw in more insults for good measure.

Lie is a strong word - and you've used it twice. But never mind ( ). "Milksop" and "inteligentsia" are throwaways from my old Union days. I got called worse names - some no doubt perfectly true and applicable. Not those particular words, mind, though I did get called 'naive' a fair bit. Maybe I was, I was only in my early twenties when I got mobilized into representing the selfishishness of my fellow (mostly much older) Unionists.

Look, I believe we need to be careful of believing everything bad about our country and not believing anything good. I'm going a little hard on this because sometimes it bothers me that we in Forumshire risk falling into being 'too soft' about enemies of Democracy and can sometimes be 'too intelligent' about what your own country is doing, indeed thinking we know more about the nitty gritty of world affairs than those with the responsibilty for 'doing things' know. This does not mean we can't question things, but sometimes I fear at times that you (and Petty and GB especially) come across often as mere 'apologists' for evil regimes. I'm willing to argue against the same evil regimes.

(If you call me dishonest or a liar again, I'll definitely complain to the Admin and Petty btw ).

[Orwell]

Actually someone called me 'pompous' once. Can you believe it! Not that I hold grudges. {{You bet! }}}

[Eldorion]

No dishonesty - serious views with a leaven of humour.

I don't really see the humor in your posts, but that's probably a subjective issue within me.

WEll, to clarify. I agree with you. But on top of that I think for the Iranan people have to 'work toward'having Western Freedoms. Where am I insulting you there - or not addressing your point?

I didn't see it as a response to my point because my point was about what people wanted, it's about what generally happens in those situations regardless of anyone's intentions or desires.

There is a danger of that happening, yes. A risk worth taking.

I would be inclined to agree with you if there I knew of any situations similar to Iran where "democracy by invasion" has actually worked. I've thought about it a bit but there are none that occur to me, although there are a number of both recent and historical examples (a few of which I've mentioned already) that suggest it doesn't work, or that it requires different circumstances. Do you have any relevant cases to suggest that democracy by invasion would stand a good chance of success in Iran? Because if there isn't any precedent, then I don't think it's a risk worth taking in this case.

Lie is a strong word - and you've used it twice. "Milksop" and "inteligentsia" are throwaways from my old Union days. I got called worse names - some no doubt perfectly true and applicable. Not those particular words, mind, though I did get alled 'naive' a lot. Mayb I was, I was only in my early twenties when I got mobilized into representing the selfishishness of my fellow Unionists.

For what it's worth, I chose to replace the word lie twice as well, after thinking about the post for a few minutes. Nevertheless, I did not say I was done with the thread because there were contrary viewpoints, as you alleged.

Look, I do believe we need to be careful of believing everything bad about our country and not believing anything good.

That's a reasonable enough concern. I know I'm very negative about the U.S. here but that's largely because it's taken for granted where I live that the U.S. is great and so there is little point in listing the positive aspects since everyone (IRL) agrees about that already. But I don't really see what that has to do with this particular discussion since I don't think I was criticizing the U.S. in my past few posts. I criticized militaristic rhetoric but that's a criticism of specific people within the U.S. (and other countries) rather than a commentary about the country as a whole.

This does not mean we can't question things, but sometimes I fear at times that you (and Petty and GB especially) you come across often as 'apologists' for evil regimes. I'm willing to argue against the same evil regimes.

I'm really trying to see this from your point of view, but I repeatedly and deliberately mentioned that I wasn't trying to defend Iran and/or that I wasn't advocating for them to have nukes since I realized my posts could come across that way. More to the point, the overall thrust of my posts was not so much about Iran specifically that trying to force democracy onto a country at gunpoint was a bad idea. Insofar as Iran was concerned my point is primarily that I think many Western politicians and media are handling the situation poorly. I really don't understand how, given the above, my posts could have come across as apologizing for Iran. I think I took enough reasonable steps to clarify what I meant.

[Orwell]

Well, to clarify. I agree with you. But on top of that I think for the Iranian people have to 'work toward'having Western Freedoms. Where am I insulting you there - or not addressing your point?

I didn't see it as a response to my point because my point was about what people wanted, it's about what generally happens in those situations regardless of anyone's intentions or desires.

Creating a chance for giving folk what they want is still worth the inherent risks and disturbance. People were being killed progessively by Saddam. That would not have stopped until the War stopped it.

I would be inclined to agree with you if there I knew of any situations similar to Iran where "democracy by invasion" has actually worked. I've thought about it a bit but there are none that occur to me, although there are a number of both recent and historical examples (a few of which I've mentioned already) that suggest it doesn't work, or that it requires different circumstances. Do you have any relevant cases to suggest that democracy by invasion would stand a good chance of success in Iran? Because if there isn't any precedent, then I don't think it's a risk worth taking in this case.

Where have countries invaded before with the intention of bringing Democracy? We have two good questions now! Anyway, Afghanistan and Irak are two countries that lean toward Tyrannical Regimes. Most people, however, want to live in relative Freedom. I don't mean the Theo-logues or ideologues - I mean people generally. We're all hobbits at heart.

For what it's worth, I chose to replace the word lie twice as well, after thinking about the post for a few minutes. Nevertheless, I did not say I was done with the thread because there were contrary viewpoints, as you alleged.

You did accuse me of not mounting and argument and threatened to remove from the contest though, which was what I was getting at (with a bit of humour thrown in).

That's a reasonable enough concern. I know I'm very negative about the U.S. here but that's largely because it's taken for granted where I live that the U.S. is great and so there is little point in listing the positive aspects since everyone (IRL) agrees about that already. But I don't really see what that has to do with this particular discussion since I don't think I was criticizing the U.S. in my past few posts. I criticized militaristic rhetoric but that's a criticism of specific people within the U.S. (and other countries) rather than a commentary about the country as a whole.

I guess it's response to an 'atmosphere' I glean from your views on your government/country/people.

I'm really trying to see this from your point of view, but I repeatedly and deliberately mentioned that I wasn't trying to defend Iran and/or that I wasn't advocating for them to have nukes since I realized my posts could come across that way. More to the point, the overall thrust of my posts was not so much about Iran specifically that trying to force democracy onto a country at gunpoint was a bad idea. Insofar as Iran was concerned my point is primarily that I think many Western politicians and media are handling the situation poorly. I really don't understand how, given the above, my posts could have come across as apologizing for Iran. I think I took enough reasonable steps to clarify what I meant.

Forcing Democracy on a country? Or is it a response to the wishes of people to have a 'democracy' of their own, while not necessarily being based purely on a Western idea of democracy? My prejudices are showing (as always): I think democracy is a good thing - even for the Religious and the otherwise ideological. Even if it's hard to do. And before you say that "Democracy" itself is ideological; well, it is and it isn't. Democracy is about allowing maximum freedom to individuals, though "Freedom with Responsibility." As far as you 'defending' Iran: not wanting to criticize the regime, but criticise your own side, is kind of tanatmount to supporting the regime, in my opinion.

[Eldorion]

Creating a chance for giving folk what they want is still worth the inherent risks and disturbance. People were being killed progessively by Saddam. That would not have stopped until the War stopped it.

The war actually accelerated deaths in Iraq, and it further debilitated Iraq's infrastructure. My point is that there are a lot of side-effects of military intervention, especially full-blown invasions, that are not often given full consideration. You don't want the cure to be worse than the disease. Obviously, a dictator like Saddam is not a good thing and trying to find the right course of action is tricky. However, just because I don't support invasion doesn't mean I support the regime in question or think nothing should be done. Sadly this false dichotomy is all too common in the media.

Forcing Democracy on a country?

Yes, trying to import Western political beliefs, values, and institutions to a country that lacks the history, culture, or social infrastructure that will allow democratic institutions to take route. That's part of what I mean by "forcing" democracy onto a country. The Bush Administration's approach to democracy building was essentially to drop in the mechanics of Western democracy and assume it would grow and function the same as it does in America and elsewhere. This didn't happen, though, for reasons that Halfwise and I both touched on earlier.

Or is it a response to the wishes of people to have a 'democracy' of their own, while not necessarily being based purely on a Western idea of democracy? My prejudices are showing (as always): I think democracy is a good thing - even for the Religious and the otherwise ideological.

I generally agree with you that democracy is a good thing (it has its weaknesses, like all political systems, but it's probably the best that's been tried yet). However, not everyone agrees that it's a good thing. This is the other part of what I mean by forcing democracy onto a country. If the citizens of a newly democratized country do not like democracy they're not going to vote for politicians who will foster and preserve the fledgling, fragile political system. Then you end up with various undemocratic and/or illiberal laws, such as the allowances for Sharia law that are enshrined in the post-invasion Iraqi Constitution.

Even if it's hard to do. And before you say that "Democracy" itself is ideological; well, it is and it isn't. Democracy is about allowing maximum freedom to individuals, though "Freedom with Responsibility."

Yes, but there are certain circumstances under which democracy flourishes, and there are certain circumstances under which (history demonstrates) it quickly gives way to tyranny. Before the invasion of Iraq (and after it, for that matter) many people assumed the Iraqis would universally embrace democracy and act in an essentially Western manner towards it. That didn't happen, however, because democracies require functioning social organizations and broadly accepted cultural values to function. (There has been quite a bit of scholarship on this topic; Haflwise touched on this earlier and I cannot recommend enough that you read up on this if you haven't before.) To try to summarize it briefly, the very idea of freedom with responsibility in a democratic context developed slowly in a specific historical context (primarily European) and it takes time for any non-democratic country to become acclimatized to these ideas. This is why the most successful newly democratic countries of the past 60 years began a process of political and economic liberalization while they were still dictatorships and only gradually became full democracies.

You've mentioned several times that "creating a chance" for democracy and freedom is worth the risks involved in an invasion. However, the fact of the matter is that history proves there is no viable chance that a free and functioning democracy will emerge from the sort of "democracy-building" that the U.S. and others have engaged in with Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither of those countries are what you would call particularly free or democratic, despite the veneer of Western-style institutions, and there is further historical evidence to bear this out. If you want I can try to hunt down some references on this tomorrow; I'm too tired right now but like I mentioned there has been some serious study of this matter by scholars.

As far as you 'defending' Iran: not wanting to criticize the regime, but criticise your own side, is kind of tanatmount to supporting the regime, in my opinion.

I've said that I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that I don't trust its government. I think that's a pretty clear criticism of the regime. I have not criticized the regimes of the U.S. or any other countries that joined in the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan. I have criticized many of the decisions made in those ventures, and I've criticized the rhetoric of some politicians in those countries, but that is categorically different from criticizing the regime itself.

[Orwell]

The war actually accelerated deaths in Iraq, and it further debilitated Iraq's infrastructure. My point is that there are a lot of side-effects of military intervention, especially full-blown invasions, that are not often given full consideration. You don't want the cure to be worse than the disease. Obviously, a dictator like Saddam is not a good thing and trying to find the right course of action is tricky. However, just because I don't support invasion doesn't mean I support the regime in question or think nothing should be done. Sadly this false dichotomy is all too common in the media.

Nothing had been done for years before the invasion and during a wrong Iraki war against Iran.

Yes, trying to import Western political beliefs, values, and institutions to a country that lacks the history, culture, or social infrastructure that will allow democratic institutions to take route. That's part of what I mean by "forcing" democracy onto a country. The Bush Administration's approach to democracy building was essentially to drop in the mechanics of Western democracy and assume it would grow and function the same as it does in America and elsewhere. This didn't happen, though, for reasons that Halfwise and I both touched on earlier.

Folk wanted democracy. How it grows is not the point, that it has an opportunity to grow is.

I generally agree with you that democracy is a good thing (it has its weaknesses, like all political systems, but it's probably the best that's been tried yet). However, not everyone agrees that it's a good thing. This is the other part of what I mean by forcing democracy onto a country. If the citizens of a newly democratized country do not like democracy they're not going to vote for politicians who will foster and preserve the fledgling, fragile political system. Then you end up with various undemocratic and/or illiberal laws, such as the allowances for Sharia law that are enshrined in the post-invasion Iraqi Constitution.

It is hard for people to vote in Irak because of violent 'minorites'. Sharia Law is based on patriarchal power. It is agreed to readily by a few, and acquiesced to by the many for fear of the vicious few. It is a system based on fear. Think Spanish Inquiisition five hundred or so years ago.

Yes, but there are certain circumstances under which democracy flourishes, and there are certain circumstances under which (history demonstrates) it quickly gives way to tyranny.

Examples please.

Before the invasion of Iraq (and after it, for that matter) many people assumed the Iraqis would universally embrace democracy and act in an essentially Western manner towards it. That didn't happen, however, because democracies require functioning social organizations and broadly accepted cultural values to function.

No, people are too frightened to vote.

(There has been quite a bit of scholarship on this topic; Haflwise touched on this earlier and I cannot recommend enough that you read up on this if you haven't before.)

I don't readily accept 'scholarship' per se as you know. Was it Right wing scholarship? I bet no. Left wing? I bet, yes. Who can you believe?

To try to summarize it briefly, the very idea of freedom with responsibility in a democratic context developed slowly in a specific historical context (primarily European) and it takes time for any non-democratic country to become acclimatized to these ideas. This is why the most successful newly democratic countries of the past 60 years began a process of political and economic liberalization while they were still dictatorships and only gradually became full democracies.

India's not doing badly. They were invaded long long ago. They had time to develop. Indeed, the Indians wanted what the Brits had - Democracy. The Colonialists got kicked out and they went reasonably graciously. They're still largely friends.

You've mentioned several times that "creating a chance" for democracy and freedom is worth the risks involved in an invasion. However, the fact of the matter is that history proves there is no viable chance that a free and functioning democracy will emerge from the sort of "democracy-building" that the U.S. and others have engaged in with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Examples of other democracy-making attempts, please.

Neither of those countries are what you would call particularly free or democratic, despite the veneer of Western-style institutions, and there is further historical evidence to bear this out. If you want I can try to hunt down some references on this tomorrow; I'm too tired right now but like I mentioned there has been some serious study of this matter by scholars.

Democracy takes time to take root. Did you mention 'scholars' again?

I've said that I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and that I don't trust its government. I think that's a pretty clear criticism of the regime. I have not criticized the regimes of the U.S. or any other countries that joined in the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan. I have criticized many of the decisions made in those ventures, and I've criticized the rhetoric of some politicians in those countries, but that is categorically different from criticizing the regime itself.

Okay. Point taken. So, what would you do about Iran. Let them make a Bomb - or two? Who'd go up in a mushroom cloud first, I wonder? Israel or Iran...? Israel will beat them to it I'm tipping. If we toppled the Iran Leadership first, there would be less lives lost, methinks.

[halfwise]

I almost don't want to wade in here because you two are putting up such a fine show that I'm afraid I'll pull it back to amateur hour and the audience will call for the hook to pull me offstage.

But Orwell: you have never responded to what I think is one of Eldo and my strongest points: ever since more than one country has gotten nukes, no-one has ever dared use one. And Korea's Kim Klan is one seriously nutty bunch of SOBs. Iran is ruled by a council, not a dictator. Since the revolution they have attacked no-one, only defended against Iraq. What makes you think they would actually be crazy enough to use the bomb?

[Eldorion]

Nothing had been done for years before the invasion and during a wrong Iraki war against Iran.

Well, the history of the U.S. and Iraq is a complicated one. The U.S. actually supported Iraq and sold weapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, which I agree was wrong on the part of Iraq. At the risk of you accusing me of being unfair to my own country again, I think it was wrong of the U.S. to support Iraq during the war. On the other hand, after Iraq invaded Kuwait (which is/was a stronger U.S. ally) the U.S. turned around and fought a war with Iraq in the early 1990s. Throughout the '90s the UN enforced economic sanctions against Iraq, several countries enforced no-fly zones over Iraq, and the U.S. even conducted a bombing campaign or two. (Interestingly, UNICEF estimated that the child mortality rate doubled as a result of sanctions.) So there were things done, but it was a complicated and ultimately ineffectual history. It was not at all clear that an invasion was the only possible solution, particularly since the drive to invade was based on false intelligence about Iraqi WMDs.

Folk wanted democracy. How it grows is not the point, that it has an opportunity to grow is.

...

It is hard for people to vote in Irak because of violent 'minorites'. Sharia Law is based on patriarchal power. It is agreed to readily by a few, and acquiesced to by the many for fear of the vicious few. It is a system based on fear. Think Spanish Inquiisition five hundred or so years ago.

It seems that you've repeated these assertions several times. Do you have evidence for either of them?

Examples please.

Every time I've listed examples so far, you've fallen back on the No True Scotsman fallacy and claimed that they don't count because they were weak democracies or mitigating factors such as violence. However, that is exactly the point, and you continue to avoid addressing it. New, post-invasion democracies do not have the strength or the institutions to remain democracies. I've already mentioned 1930s Germany and 2000s Afghanistan and Iraq. Other examples include Haiti after UN intervention in 1994, which within five years saw the President dismiss almost the entire legislature and ruled by decree. Allegations of drug trafficking by the government persisted followed by a coup only a decade later. South Vietnam came into existence when its ruler, Diem, refused to participate in a nation-wide referendum (that had been mandated by an earlier peace treaty) and had himself elected with more votes than there were voters. The U.S. was aware of this as well as Diem's abuses against his country's Buddhist majority, but fought in defense of South Vietnam for nearly 20 years.

So far in this thread I've mentioned several examples that suggest democracy by invasion doesn't work. However, ultimately you are asking me to prove a negative, so it's time for you to step up. You have insisted that this is a workable method of democracy-building for the entire discussion, so provide evidence for that claim.

No, people are too frightened to vote.

Evidence?

India's not doing badly. They were invaded long long ago. They had time to develop. Indeed, the Indians wanted what the Brits had - Democracy. The Colonialists got kicked out and they went reasonably graciously. They're still largely friends.

India is a very different situation than the sort of 20th and 21st century pro-democracy invasions that we've seen during the War on Terror. In fact, it bears out my earlier point that democratization requires a period of undemocratic rule to allow a political class and social infrastructure to develop. India only democratized after more than a century of British rule in which the political institutions and individuals who guided India to its independence were developed and trained. There was no time for such institutions or classes to develop in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Okay. Point taken. So, what would you do about Iran. Let them make a Bomb - or two? Who'd go up in a mushroom cloud first, I wonder? Israel or Iran...? Israel will beat them to it I'm tipping. If we toppled the Iran Leadership first, there would be less lives lost, methinks.

I have not devoted too much thought to this, but I think it's important not to force the Iranians into a corner. Were the U.S. and others to demonstrate a willingness to work with the Iranians they might not feel they needed nuclear weapons to defend themselves. The sort of aggressive, militaristic that comes from Israel, many politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere, and much of the media does not foster an atmosphere of cooperation. However, regardless of the alternatives, the reality is that strutting around, brandishing military power, will only get you so far. Invasions and occupations are too costly both in terms of lives and money to continue to be viable solutions to international problems. The U.S. discovered that the hard way with the mess that Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be for the Afghans and Iraqis themselves as well as for the cost to the U.S. and others. The reality is, if you want another country to do something, then yelling at them belligerently is not going to convince them to go along with you.

Iran actually had a remarkably reformist, pro-Western President back in 2002, but when Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech he made that President look like a fool and Ahmadinejad was voted in during the next election. Of course, as has been mentioned before, the position of Iranian President is not a terribly powerful and the true power has rested with the clerics since 1979, but a more conciliatory and diplomatic tone would have encouraged and lent legitimacy to the reformers within Iran.

NOTE: I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot in this discussion. I have tried to explain what I mean and provide links and examples when necessary or requested. However, it also feels that you reject most of what I say with your own assertions. You may have noticed that I requested you provide evidence for your claims several times in this post. This is because I'm tired of carrying on a repetitious debate that comes down to the same assertions there were at the beginning. Also, please address the point that it almost doesn't matter if the people want democracy, because a post-invasion situation does not provide the right environment for democracy to grow in. As far as I can tell, your main response to that has been "democracy takes time to grow", which when stated without evidence is so tautological as to be fallacious.

[Orwell]

I almost don't want to wade in here because you two are putting up such a fine show that I'm afraid I'll pull it back to amateur hour and the audience will call for the hook to pull me offstage.

But Orwell: you have never responded to what I think is one of Eldo and my strongest points: ever since more than one country has gotten nukes, no-one has ever dared use one. And Korea's Kim Klan is one seriously nutty bunch of SOBs. Iran is ruled by a council, not a dictator. Since the revolution they have attacked no-one, only defended against Iraq. What makes you think they would actually be crazy enough to use the bomb?

This a moot point. Was he mad, or a Chinese puppet?

[Orwell]

Well, the history of the U.S. and Iraq is a complicated one. The U.S. actually supported Iraq and sold weapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, which I agree was wrong on the part of Iraq. At the risk of you accusing me of being unfair to my own country again, I think it was wrong of the U.S. to support Iraq during the war. On the other hand, after Iraq invaded Kuwait (which is/was a stronger U.S. ally) the U.S. turned around and fought a war with Iraq in the early 1990s. Throughout the '90s the UN enforced economic sanctions against Iraq, several countries enforced no-fly zones over Iraq, and the U.S. even conducted a bombing campaign or two. (Interestingly, UNICEF estimated that the child mortality rate doubled as a result of sanctions.) So there were things done, but it was a complicated and ultimately ineffectual history. It was not at all clear that an invasion was the only possible solution, particularly since the drive to invade was based on false intelligence about Iraqi WMDs.

I do not ignor the facts of life, Eldo. Of course, 'diplomacy' twists and turns like a snake. At no stage do I say the Americans (for instance) are the good guys always, I'm just trying to push the debate in the direction they're not always the bad guys.

I could go back and find them (the facts that is) in newspapers or articles on the net, but my sources would be up for scrutiny just as yours, Eldo. We talk in 'grand' statements, but what we will end up doing is offer 'sides', as we are now. You know, the team we 'barrack' for in essence, and the 'beliefs' or 'pretences' of others, not our own evaluation of 'all' that we read and see. But I'll take up a few reasonably 'simple' facts. Were there not assertions at the time of the Irak elections that opposition forces were willing to disrupt them with violence? Do I have to find the footage or news stories to prove it was threatened? Considering the violence used pre- and post-Saddam in Irak (you know, suicide bombers, bombs left etc), isn't it obvious (without me detailing old proofs) that it would keep many away from polllng booths? If you don't believe this happened, you're unbelievably naive on the issue, and have also only believed the stories you wanted to believe (possibly to support your 'side' of politics?)

Sharia Law is Patriarchal Law. What! I have to prove to you that Islamic Sharia Law is partriarchal? Example: a girl can marry whoever she wants to, whether Jew, Christian or Atheist, under the strict rule of her Male Head of House, and without serious and oppressive consequences? Only one example; but I don't see the point of listing every 'patriarchal' and 'repressive' aspect of Sharia Law to prove my general theory. That would be tedious - and unecessary, surely? I am from the Feminist West, mate. I can see plenty of medeaeval (patriachal/violent) attitudes in Sharia Law. It makes me think of the repression of earlier Religious Regimes. The Spanish Inquisition came to mind, not as a carbon copy, but as a 'regime-alike.'

Every time I've listed examples so far, you've fallen back on the No True Scotsman fallacy and claimed that they don't count because they were weak democracies or mitigating factors such as violence. However, that is exactly the point, and you continue to avoid addressing it. New, post-invasion democracies do not have the strength or the institutions to remain democracies. I've already mentioned 1930s Germany and 2000s Afghanistan and Iraq. Other examples include Haiti after UN intervention in 1994, which within five years saw the President dismiss almost the entire legislature and ruled by decree. Allegations of drug trafficking by the government persisted followed by a coup only a decade later. South Vietnam came into existence when its ruler, Diem, refused to participate in a nation-wide referendum (that had been mandated by an earlier peace treaty) and had himself elected with more votes than there were voters. The U.S. was aware of this as well as Diem's abuses against his country's Buddhist majority, but fought in defense of South Vietnam for nearly 20 years.

So far in this thread I've mentioned several examples that suggest democracy by invasion doesn't work. However, ultimately you are asking me to prove a negative, so it's time for you to step up. You have insisted that this is a workable method of democracy-building for the entire discussion, so provide evidence for that claim.

Irak and Afghanistan have yet had time to 'prove'' their democracy can survive. Vitenam is a dubious example. America may have done good or bad there, depending on what ones entrenched view is, but are you saying it was 'forced' on the Vietnamese 'after' an 'invasion' by America? I offered India. It's a thriving Democracy as far as I can see - though an 'Indian' democracy, not a purely 'Western' democracy. They've taken on basic Brit forms and warped and weaved them into something that suits them - as it should. It's 'their' 'democracy'.

India is a very different situation than the sort of 20th and 21st century pro-democracy invasions that we've seen during the War on Terror. In fact, it bears out my earlier point that democratization requires a period of undemocratic rule to allow a political class and social infrastructure to develop. India only democratized after more than a century of British rule in which the political institutions and individuals who guided India to its independence were developed and trained. There was no time for such institutions or classes to develop in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Every democracy has 'had' a period of 'undemocratic' rule, Eldo. Yes, 'India' took time to develop their 'democracy.' The Indians wanted 'democracy' not 'colonialism' or 'imperialism.' With some growing pains they achieved it. Now we have billions of people living reasonably freely under a strong democracy. It started only 'after' an invasion. Admittedly, the original invasion was not about bringing democracy, but 'colonialism.' Which brings up the idea that every country known to us has come to democracy in 'their own way' in the end, whatever way the 'democratic' idea was introdced.

I have not devoted too much thought to this, but I think it's important not to force the Iranians into a corner. Were the U.S. and others to demonstrate a willingness to work with the Iranians they might not feel they needed nuclear weapons to defend themselves. The sort of aggressive, militaristic that comes from Israel, many politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere, and much of the media does not foster an atmosphere of cooperation. However, regardless of the alternatives, the reality is that strutting around, brandishing military power, will only get you so far. Invasions and occupations are too costly both in terms of lives and money to continue to be viable solutions to international problems. The U.S. discovered that the hard way with the mess that Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be for the Afghans and Iraqis themselves as well as for the cost to the U.S. and others. The reality is, if you want another country to do something, then yelling at them belligerently is not going to convince them to go along with you.

You have no 'alternative' plan then. The fact is, Israel won't stand idle while Iran makes a bomb. I wouldn't either if I was in their position. (I'm no fan of the Irasraeli State btw - bad move in 1948 in my opinion!) Cold fact: Iran can expect an attack if they proceed.

Iran actually had a remarkably reformist, pro-Western President back in 2002, but when Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech he made that President look like a fool and Ahmadinejad was voted in during the next election.

You are kidding, aren't you? It was a mere bit of 'nasty' talk by Bush that caused the anti-reformers to win an election? There you go, maligning your own President and at the same time giving him a greater 'psychological' power than any politician deserves.[/quote]

Of course, as has been mentioned before, the position of Iranian President is not a terribly powerful and the true power has rested with the clerics since 1979, but a more conciliatory and diplomatic tone would have encouraged and lent legitimacy to the reformers within Iran.

That's a rose coloured glasses view if ever I saw one, Eldo. Come on. Be real. Actually, it's more than rose coloured, it's something else too. It also says something about the 'American' psyche (which I'll get to by the end of this paragraph!) Do you think Iranians are that frightened of a bit of Right Wing American rhetoric? What, outside political 'windbags' have more influence on Iranian polititics than 'internal' forces do? You accused me of being deeply offensive when I used the 'break some eggs' statement (which was made with tongue firmly in cheek for effect, btw), but aren't you being just as offensive to the Iranian people now, and insididiously so? Oh you Americans! Right or Left, you think your 'influence in the 'political' and 'intellectual' world is more important than anyone else thinks it is![/quote]

NOTE: I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot in this discussion. I have tried to explain what I mean and provide links and examples when necessary or requested. However, it also feels that you reject most of what I say with your own assertions. You may have noticed that I requested you provide evidence for your claims several times in this post. This is because I'm tired of carrying on a repetitious debate that comes down to the same assertions there were at the beginning. Also, please address the point that it almost doesn't matter if the people want democracy, because a post-invasion situation does not provide the right environment for democracy to grow in. As far as I can tell, your main response to that has been "democracy takes time to grow", which when stated without evidence is so tautological as to be fallacious.

What a specious set of sentences. In a proper discussion, some points need to be raked over and constantly re-examined. In a debate which you wish to win, of course, all sorts of 'specious' comments can be made. '... tautological as to be fallacious..."? A nasty attempt to put me down - and wrong headed. I wish you'd open your mind and discuss things properly, Eldo. Winning debates is not the same as finding the truth! Your will to dominate is scary! {{{ }}}

[Pettytyrant101]

The problem here is there are so many factors at play. If you even just take Iraq- where do you start? Youcould trace some of their problems all the way back to the Babylonians. Even just in reletavoile recent times the country has been used by the British who gave it a Parlimentray democracy complete with Royal Family, or America who hired, trained and put in place Saddma? Or the weapons companies whose fininacial influence is so great they can influence the decision to go to war on econmic grounds/ Or the vested intrests of those involved- Saddma in wanting to hold onto power, the leaders of the various religous factors who had been persecuted under Saddma for decades?
Probably the last people to have any real influence of course were the normal folks of the country just trying to get by.

Eldo is I think quite right, you can' just create a democracy and expect it to work. It does take time- even getting women the vote took decades of trying, America still had state sanctioned racism up until the 60's.
The idea you can go into a country with miltary force, remove all its exisiting tiers of government and civil institutuions and simply replace them all in a short time period is nieve. If not impossible.
I can't think of a single democracy which exists that wasn't born out of years of struggle. Hardly suprising as Democracy strives to devolve powers to the people and ruling elites don't like that-even in as limited a form as democracy gives.

[Pettytyrant101]

On an unrelated matter this from the BBC- "The prime minister has expressed frustration that he is being ignored at an EU summit on jobs and growth. David Cameron formally raised objections in Brussels that his ideas for cutting red tape were not reflected in draft summit conclusions."

What did he expect- he vetoed the bail out plan everyone else in Europe agreed on and then he walked out the meeting! He sidelined himself and now he is complaining about it!

[Orwell]

The idea you can go into a country with miltary force, remove all its exisiting tiers of government and civil institutuions and simply replace them all in a short time period is nieve. If not impossible. I can't think of a single democracy which exists that wasn't born out of years of struggle. Hardly suprising as Democracy strives to devolve powers to the people and ruling elites don't like that-even in as limited a form as democracy gives.

Couldn't agree more. You would have to be naive to think it can be done in a few years. Hard work and often painful! Over as long as it takes. All people want freedom, you know. Worth doing. Need the will and spine though to achieve it. I have confidence in the Irakis and Afghani's they'll get there - now they've had a start.

Irak was invaded to knock off Saddam's regime. Afghan to knock off the Taliban. The Democracy effort is being done in co-operation with the leaders of those countries. They want it as far as I can tell. There were Irakis and Afghan's who wanted their relative regimes overthrown and replaced with democracy. Do you deny it?

[Orwell]

On an unrelated matter this from the BBC- "The prime minister has expressed frustration that he is being ignored at an EU summit on jobs and growth. David Cameron formally raised objections in Brussels that his ideas for cutting red tape were not reflected in draft summit conclusions."

What did he expect- he vetoed the bail out plan everyone else in Europe agreed on and then he walked out the meeting! He sidelined himself and now he is complaining about it!

He's a Brittish Tory, so he expects everyone to do what they're told. Isn't isn't it obvious, Petty?

[Pettytyrant101]

There were Irakis and Afghan's who wanted their relative regimes overthrown and replaced with democracy. Do you deny it? - Orwell

Not only would I not deny it I would say that encouraging- giving financial and if necessary militray support to such groups is a better way than invasion.
The US encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam with promises of military backing and when they did the West abondoned them. Saddam punished them by using chemical weapons on them, wiping out thousands in the most horrible fashion, the West continuted to support his regime through weapons sales and oil deals. This is unjustifiable.
There were other options for removing dictaros and their regimes which were never fully supported or implimented, and in this case we betrayed those we had encouraged to revolt.

There is also a whole other game going on here- democracies who already dominate dont always want other democracies- for a start there is no gaurnatee another nation will vote for someone that is in the interests of other exisitng democracies. The Palistenians voted in a group the West calls terrorists for example. Its democracy but apparently not the sort we like so we refuse to engage with them.
The self interests of a country like America has for many years been best served by maintaing dictators in position in order to control access to resources. This has proved a dangerous policy as it builds up huge resentment against American in the common people whose own atttempts at reform are always stifled by the power the dictator weilds (commonly funded by the West who get their rightful share of the blame).
Every country being a democracy, every person being free undermines the ruling classes as I noted above- and they dont like that, in a sense whilst some countries are still struggling to achieve democracy those of us with it are still trying to work out how to perfect it as it has not really shifted pwoer to the people so much as created new types of ruling classes.

[Orwell]

There were Irakis and Afghan's who wanted their relative regimes overthrown and replaced with democracy. Do you deny it? - Orwell

Not only would I not deny it I would say that encouraging- giving financial and if necessary militray support to such groups is a better way than invasion.

I really don't know they invaded to implement Democracy. It was just something else they included in the plan to make things better after they killed that pig, Saddam. (Which their supporters in Irak wanted).

The US encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam with promises of military backing and when they did the West abondoned them. Saddam punished them by using chemical weapons on them, wiping out thousands in the most horrible fashion, the West continuted to support his regime through weapons sales and oil deals. This is unjustifiable.
There were other options for removing dictaros and their regimes which were never fully supported or implimented, and in this case we betrayed those we had encouraged to revolt.

And they betrayed the Shitites in the First Gulf War too - the bastards! (No one likes Americans when they do things like that).

There is also a whole other game going on here- democracies who already dominate dont always want other democracies- for a start there is no gaurnatee another nation will vote for someone that is in the interests of other exisitng democracies. The Palistenians voted in a group the West calls terrorists for example. Its democracy but apparently not the sort we like so we refuse to engage with them.

Couldn't agree more. Hamas, of course, are only Pretend Democrats. They only use it to build power before they turn Palestine into a Theocractic Tyranny - like Iran.

The self interests of a country like America has for many years been best served by maintaing dictators in position in order to control access to resources. This has proved a dangerous policy as it builds up huge resentment against American in the common people whose own atttempts at reform are always stifled by the power the dictator weilds (commonly funded by the West who get their rightful share of the blame).

Yep.

Every country being a democracy, every person being free undermines the ruling classes as I noted above- and they dont like that, in a sense whilst some countries are still struggling to achieve democracy those of us with it are still trying to work out how to perfect it as it has not really shifted pwoer to the people so much as created new types of ruling classes.

True, true, true. You and I are such conscientious Philosophes and Moderates, Petty. And there was me thinking you were a red ragging Commie all this time. Mind you, I get a vote and have the right to complain, and don't get blown up every day by Religious or Communist Zealots, so my democracy isn't so bad all told.