How can we expect the Iraqis to embrace peace if we set an example of war?

Sergo · 12-19-2005, 12:20 PM

Discuss.

Feyshtey · 12-19-2005, 02:03 PM

Well certainly allowing those people to continue to live under tyranical dictators and nutcase extremist terrorists would teach them to live in peace far sooner...

Orlun · 12-19-2005, 02:13 PM

Success will promote peace more then any example.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb121605.shtml

Iraq will end up with less corruption, more security and a free market. These will drive up the 'wealth' of all Iraqi's and when they are happy, they will know peace.

Eclipse · 12-19-2005, 02:50 PM

Most likely it will drive up the "wealth" of 5% of the population of Iraq, and the rest of the 'less fortunate' people will be just as miserable regardless of what ideology and political structure their government adheres by.

Kinda like America.

Did you know Cuban people are happy? Like, I mean happy...they like the way they live, and noone ever goes hungry. That's soemthing to think about. Maybe ignorance is a better solution than righteousness.

-Eclipse

Feyshtey · 12-19-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclipse

Most likely it will drive up the "wealth" of 5% of the population of Iraq, and the rest of the 'less fortunate' people will be just as miserable regardless of what ideology and political structure their government adheres by.

Kinda like America.

That is, of course, a possibility. But they won't be lined up and shot. Or be far less likely tto be bombed while making their weekly grocery run.

I'm willing to bet that people living in poverty and peace, are happier than people living in poverty and constant fear of death.

Orlun · 12-19-2005, 04:40 PM

Numbers of happy cubans attempting to defect to the US is on the rise. /boggle

Sergo · 12-19-2005, 05:59 PM

Interesting link, Orlun, especially, "The World Bank has devised a rule-of-law index that measures the extent to which people have confidence in and abide by the rules of their society. An economy with a very efficient judicial system, clear property rights, and an effective government will produce higher total wealth."

The thing that's struck me is how many Iraqis (and likely imported terrorists as well) have no faith in this kind of self-determination. I think a lot of them believe that the only two options are 1) be in power, or 2) get screwed. These desperate elements then cause trouble for the emerging democracy, get shot at, then blame us for it and reinforce their own victim mentality. How do we get around that?

The pivotal question in Iraq may be whether democracy can get enough "traction." Do more people start to believe and slowly crowd out the extremists, or do more people become fearful and reactionary, "every man for himself?"

This is typical of my failures. I try to start a flamefest and it erupts into a thoughtful discussion.

Fadetree · 12-20-2005, 09:30 AM

Eclipse, you couldn't be more wrong about the Cubans. Here's a hint : don't believe their press, radio or television.

Sergo - that point is the central question about the future of human societies. It's still being answered. We won't have a final answer for centuries. I think it's more likely than not that we will fail.

Razorwire · 12-30-2005, 09:18 AM

Personally I think it is okay for them not to want a government that will protect the corporations from the evil consumers and not to want a consumer economy. Democracy is not the only way forward and it is time that the US stops messing with foreign governments and trying to set up puppet states.

If the people want a theocracy then that is what they should have, if they want a monarchy then that is what they should have. Democracy isn't the end all be all of human governmental systems.

Sergo · 12-30-2005, 03:33 PM

Ah, but who are "the people" who want this theocracy? The root problem in Iraq, in my opinion, is that it is a state stuck with borders arbitrarily drawn for the convenience of western imperialists over a hundred years ago.

I haven't read reports of lots of Afghani women hankering for the good old days of theocracy, either.

Razorwire · 12-31-2005, 03:52 PM

Personally I agree, however my point is that democracy seeding is just as bad as the russian communist seeding that we deemed to be so evil during the cold war.

Feyshtey · 01-02-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Personally I agree, however my point is that democracy seeding is just as bad as the russian communist seeding that we deemed to be so evil during the cold war.

That's only true if you believe that people are better off if they are not allowed to speak for themselves. Or be allowed to have a say in the course of their own lives.

Razorwire · 01-03-2006, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feyshtey

That's only true if you believe that people are better off if they are not allowed to speak for themselves. Or be allowed to have a say in the course of their own lives.

What I am saying is that we do not have the right to tell people how to run their lives, especially not at gun point. Other governmental styles do not dictate that people won't have a voice that will be listened to. Socialism and Communism (in the true forms not the crap that Stalin had) are both more directly involved with the will of the people than democracy ever will.

Democracy in itself is only a way for 51% of the population to oppress the other 49%.

Feyshtey · 01-03-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Democracy in itself is only a way for 51% of the population to oppress the other 49%.

You mean... the majority?

Are you suggesting that in 'real' communist or socialist societies, everyone agrees on the course set? Or perhaps I should say, that you believe they would. Since such a 'real' communist or socialist society is as Utopian as a society where even 80 or 90% of the population agrees on what should be done.

At least in a Democracy, you won't be jailed or shot for voicing dissent. You can speak up if you don't agree, even if you're the only one. You can let it be known you feel a change should occur. But if you're one of the 40%+ of the population that likes to bitch a lot, but never gets out there to even vote, then you're part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

We have a huge voice in America that likes to bitch constantly about how things are run. But somehow they never get off their asses to affect change. They manage to catch their favorite sitcoms every night, and Sunday football. But they can't be bothered to go to a protest, or a rally, or a fundraiser for some cause. This is not evidence that democracy is a failed concept. It's evidence that the people don't understand wtf democracy actually is.

Razorwire · 01-03-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feyshtey

You mean... the majority?

At least in a Democracy, you won't be jailed or shot for voicing dissent. You can speak up if you don't agree, even if you're the only one. You can let it be known you feel a change should occur. But if you're one of the 40%+ of the population that likes to bitch a lot, but never gets out there to even vote, then you're part of the problem and not a part of the solution.
.

No what I mean is that the wants of the many are not always more important than the needs of the few.

And for the second part, ever seen a badly run democracy? President for Life? Vote for one of these two parties or get shot? Ever looked at Latin America? None of the social ills that you are talking about are inherently involved in any governmental system and they can be involved in them all.

By the way Martin Luther King Jr. was shot for voicing dissent views, trying to make a better tomorrow. Penn State hippy hunting? Tear gassing and let loose the riot squads on protesters? The civil rights protestors were regularly hosed down with fire hoses. All of this happens in the United States of America, so don't tell me that democracy is the end all be all of governments and that it means that no corruption, greed or hate will rule the country. How long will it take to remove the racism inherent in our country? As long as 51% of the folks that vote are white and hate non-whites the non-whites are screwed (see the south).

Bush sent the military into Orleans with shoot to kill orders. He used the US military to KILL US citizens. That is not the only time the US forces have been used to shoot and kill US citizens.

Feyshtey · 01-03-2006, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorwire

No what I mean is that the wants of the many are not always more important than the needs of the few.

Interesting choice of words.

Are the needs of the many more important that the wants of a few?

Meaning, is the desire of Hussein to rule all without defiance more important than the lack of food, let alone security, for the millions of Iraqi citizens? Is it best, morally, for he and his Guard to live in a palace with all the trappings of royalty while his people starve? And while is troops murder them if they complain?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, is it morally more right for those people to be able to speak up?

[edit]

Quote:

And for the second part, ever seen a badly run democracy? President for Life? Vote for one of these two parties or get shot?

If the democracy is run so poorly, would it not be apparent to the majority? If the majority is not able to affect change, then it's not a democracy.

Razorwire · 01-03-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feyshtey

Interesting choice of words.

Are the needs of the many more important that the wants of a few?

Meaning, is the desire of Hussein to rule all without defiance more important than the lack of food, let alone security, for the millions of Iraqi citizens? Is it best, morally, for he and his Guard to live in a palace with all the trappings of royalty while his people starve? And while is troops murder them if they complain?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, is it morally more right for those people to be able to speak up?

[edit]

If the democracy is run so poorly, would it not be apparent to the majority? If the majority is not able to affect change, then it's not a democracy.

Before this goes any farhter I think I have to set a couple of things clear, I think Saddam needs a bullet to the brainpan, he is a f*cker and deserves to suffer. What he did to his people is unforgivable. We are both talking about governments mostly free of corruption at the end of the process and my asertation is that any governmental type that is free of corruption is pretty much as good as any other. Who needs to vote if you king has your best interests at heart. Why imprint our values on another culture that does not share our world view? Let them choose what they want.

Feyshtey · 01-03-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Before this goes any farhter I think I have to set a couple of things clear, I think Saddam needs a bullet to the brainpan, he is a f*cker and deserves to suffer. What he did to his people is unforgivable. We are both talking about governments mostly free of corruption at the end of the process and my asertation is that any governmental type that is free of corruption is pretty much as good as any other. Who needs to vote if you king has your best interests at heart. Why imprint our values on another culture that does not share our world view? Let them choose what they want.

That's the whole point.

They can never set the standards of thier own lives, based on their own culture and societal structures, if they don't have a voice to do it.

If you think that dictators and kings with ultimate power rise to that position by being benign and loving rulers, I don't know what to tell you. Those who attain those positions are far more often ruthless dictators who grind all dissent under a murderous fist. And those with the passion to become such dictators don't really give a crap what the customs or societal standards of a region are. They want the power to transform all of it to their own vision and their vision alone. That's the problem. Democracy is the only government form structured to prevent precisely that.

Razorwire · 01-03-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feyshtey

That's the whole point.

They can never set the standards of thier own lives, based on their own culture and societal structures, if they don't have a voice to do it.

If you think that dictators and kings with ultimate power rise to that position by being benign and loving rulers, I don't know what to tell you. Those who attain those positions are far more often ruthless dictators who grind all dissent under a murderous fist. And those with the passion to become such dictators don't really give a crap what the customs or societal standards of a region are. They want the power to transform all of it to their own vision and their vision alone. That's the problem. Democracy is the only government form structured to prevent precisely that.

No I don't think that and I personally would go with a platonic republic where the educated elite would run things and be barred from owning anything but thier own clothes but...

That is me and I am not a member of the Islam nation, nor am I from anywhere but the USA. I do accept that other people think that the way that we do thing is wrong and they are perfecly with in their rights to think so and to not want to live like us. Some people think that their religous leaders know what is best for them and trust them. Some people think that their monarchs know what is best for them and trust them. Some people don't, I certainly don't trust either set. The point is that is my choice not to trust authority figures and religous types. It is your choice to disagree with me and it is not either of our choice to force someone to think like we do. We have to accept that some people will think that we are wrong and will want to live in another way. Let them.

Feyshtey · 01-03-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razorwire

It is your choice to disagree with me and it is not either of our choice to force someone to think like we do. We have to accept that some people will think that we are wrong and will want to live in another way. Let them.

I think this is where our disagrement stems from.

My opinion is that all people everything should be allowed to think. Not to just continue to let others think for them. (Or more accurately, be forced to allow others to think for them.)