Text 14406, 179 rader
Skriven 2011-02-23 17:11:44 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 14373 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war
===========================================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Wednesday February 23 2011 at
10:55:

MV>>> That was over 200 years ago. The world is a different place now.

RB>> And humans different people?

MV> But of course.

I beg to differ. Sex, greed and fear still mostly determine what human beings
do. The only things that have changed are our ideas of how to go about getting
what we want.

MV>>> That is probably because you are too much focussed on the western
MV>>> style democracy.

RB>> That's why it's called "democracy" and not "dictatorship"

MV> Indonesia is not a dictatorship.

No? I have a slightly different impression.

MV>>> Indonesia may not have the type of democracy that you would like to
MV>>> have for yourself. To me it looks that it is what THEY want.

RB>> You can naturally say the same about _any_ country, including places
RB>> like Zimbabwe.

MV> No, you can not and you know it.

I know that is _precisely_ the case, since otherwise there would be a lot more
revolutions than there are.

MV>>> Mind you , if the people of a country decide that they want to be
MV>>> ruled by an absolute monarch, than that too is democratic decision.

RB>> Is it? And who decides,

MV> I gave you the example of Lichtenstein.

Which begs the question: who decides? Aside from which, Liechtenstein is a
constitutional (not absolute) monarchy.

RB>> if there are no free elections and no literate and informed
RB>> electorate?

MV> Choosing to be ruled by an absolute monarch does not rule out an
MV> informed electorate.

Indeed. The Iranians were informed and chose a bloody religios fanatic. Now
they must be very happy, since it _was_ their choice.

MV> You are too focussed on the western style of doing things.

Yeah, I believe in freedom and secularism. Big problem with some people
nowadays.

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.

MV>>> Here I totally disagree. The Sjah was a brutal dictator...

RB>> In _complete_ contrast to Koumehni, a gentle, kind old man...

MV> That does not undo the fact that the Sjah was a brutal dictator that
MV> should never had the support of the US in the first place.

Was he and shouldn't he? All depends on where you were - things in Iran are
just fine now, too - if you're in the ruling class. Otherwise there's not much
difference between the Savak and the Revolutionary Guards.

MV>>> ...that should never have had the US support in the first place.

RB>> Why not, as long as "the people" (who cares how repressed) accepted
RB>> that? According to you, that was "democracy".

MV> They obviously did not accept it or there would have been no
MV> revolution.

Ah, but you're cheating... that came _after_ a long period of calm.

MV> Other than that: even if they had accepted it, the Sjah still should
MV> not have the support of the uSA. When peope choose to be oppressed, t
MV> does not mean that they deserve support of the USA. They can just as
MV> well be left alone to enjoy their choice.

As they are now. So why do so many complain about their lot? They should enjoy
their "freedom".

MV>>> This policy is a selfish policy of cowards.

RB>> No, just realism.

MV> And a selfish policy pf cowards.

Realism. You can't have it both ways - you either support dictators in the
interest of stability, or you don't support them and watch still another
dictator take power. If you call _that_ "democracy", you're really barking up
the wrong tree.

RB>> The same kind of realism that governs most of the world today. Take a
RB>> look at the Pax Romana, introduced by Octavian, a bloody dictator if
RB>> there ever was one. But he kept the Roman Empire stable for many
RB>> decades and gave it a time of peace and prosperity.

MV> The same can be said about Saddam Hussein. So why did he have to go?

Because someone stronger came along. Same eventually happened to the Roman
empire.

RB>> Take your choice: "democracy" and chaos (at least in countries not
RB>> able to understand the concept), or rigid dictatorship, peace and
RB>> prosperity. I know that's not politically correct nowadays, but
RB>> "them's the facts".

MV> There is a world of difference between accepting that we can not
MV> remove every dictator and actively supporting dictators and supplying
MV> them with weapons as the US has done in the case of Mubarak and many
MV> others.

I find it absolutely _fascinating_ the way Mr. Mubarak has graduated from
"President Mubarak" to a "dictator" and "despot", here and particularly in the
media, in the space of a mere two weeks. Shows how shallow expressions of
friendship and support are, at any rate.

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

;-) Really? And just how do you go about predicting that? And what do you do
when you're wrong?

RB>> ;-) Of course not... they would merely have behaved as the muslims
RB>> did in 1300 and 1400,

MV> Do the Christians of today still behave as their forefathers who
MV> engaged in crusades?

Bullshit. Christians have the Enlightenment and secularism behind them. Muslims
still have to go through those phases: it took us 500 years, more or less. With
them, the process still hasn't started.

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

RB>> The question remains as to whether that was really a mistake.

MV> Look at the mess that results. The "stability" is only temporary. It
MV> lasts a couple of decades at most.

Your "couple of decades" can easily be 50 years. Anyway, better than a couple
of decades of civil war and terrorism. I can still easily remember Biafra. And
Katanga. Or for that matter what happened to British India after 1947. Remember
East Pakistan? They call it Bangladesh nowadays, and the people there are
living in paradise - or are they?

MV> 1) The dictator turens against you. E.g. Saddam Hussein.

MV> 2) There is a coup, the dictator is ousted and its successor turns
MV> against you. (Cuba)

MV> 3) There is a revolution and the people turn against you. (Iran and
MV> now possibly Egypt and Libia)

Heads I lose, tails you win, eh? In that case the best course of action would
appear to be to support whoever assures stability, regardless of how.

But letting the rest of the world go to hell in a handcart is unfortunately not
an option for the strongest military power in the present world. Do nothing and
you're damned for inaction. Do something and you're damned for interfering. The
last time the USA could stay out of internation affairs was in 1914 - and then
the Germans (Lusitania) and a desire to help quashed that. Now there's no
turning back.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)