Text 14248, 83 rader
Skriven 2011-02-20 11:37:44 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
===========================================================
Hello Robert,

On Saturday February 19 2011 08:06, you wrote to me:

 MV>> Maybe. I do not consider it hopeless. At least one condition for
 MV>> democracy has been satisfied: it comes from within. It is the
 MV>> people that took the initiative.

 RB> That was also the case in France in 1798, and what happened? The Reign
 RB> of Terror and Napoleon.

That was over 200 years ago. The world is a different place now. Plus that I
may add, that although it did not work right away, it eventually did work.
Napoleon did not die in his palace in Paris...

 MV>> It /may/ work. It has worked in Indonesia...

 RB> Better take a look at the news from Indonesia before you start calling
 RB> _that_ a "democracy". Doesn't look very democratic to me.

That is probably because you are too much focussed on the western style
democracy. Indonesia may not have the type of democracy that you would like to
have for yourself. To me it looks that it is what THEY want.

Mind you , if the people of a country decide that they want to be ruled by an
absolute monarch, than that too is democratic decision. It happened in - what
was it? San Marino, Lichtenstein  or one of those other European mini states.
The King is an absolute rules. Some wanted to change that, some didn't. There
was a referendum and the majority decided to not change it. Their King is still
an absolute ruler by democratic decision. There you go.

 MV>> and it failed in Iran.

 RB> But I agree with you here - however, the difference was that there was
 RB> a "Fuehrer" waiting in the wings to take over _after_ the "people" had
 RB> done the dirty work.

A revolution without a leader is doomed to fail. Whether or not that leader
turns into the next dictator or leads to true democracy is always a gamble.
Sometimes they become dictators as in the case of Napoleon or Khomeiny. And
sometimes they do not, as in the case of Lech Walensa and Pavlov Havel.

 RB> And of course, there was the added help from the Americans, who
 RB> dropped the Shah like a hot potato to let "the people" have their
 RB> will.

Here I totally disagree. The Sjah was a brutal dictator that should never have
had the US support in the first place. The US supports brutal dictators out of
fear that those dictators will be replaced by Islamic fundamentalists. Honesty
compels me to admit the US were not alone in this. Many European countries have
sheepishly followed this policy of cowards, including I hate to admit, my own.

This policy is a selfish policy of cowards. We are in fact saying to those
people: we love democracy but we will allow your brutal dictator to continue to
oppress you because we are so terribly afraid of what may happen if we do allow
you to make your won decisions.

Not only is it a policy of selfish cowards, it is also counter productive in
the long run. No wonder those people turn against us when they finally oust the
dictators THAT WE HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING FOR DECADES. Dropping them when their
position becomes untenable anyway is too little, too late by far.

Had we not supported thoe dictators, those countries may indeed be taken over
by Islamic fundamentalists. But it would not have been Islamic fundamentalists
that TURN AGAINST US.

 RB> The Americans won't make _that_ mistake again, one of the reasons they
 RB> vascillated on Mubarak so lang - and were criticized for doing so.

The Americans have never stopped making the mistake of supporting dictators.

 MV>> I think the best thing we can do it to stay OUT and leave it to
 MV>> themselves.

 RB> Practically speaking, what other choice do we have?

Kill em all and let "upstairs" sort the good ones from the bad ones? ;-)


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)