Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:13:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1081 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > This is the exact same attitude most Europeans had regarding Germany in the
> > > early 1930s.
> >
> > No, it is not. Or need I remind you that there were few democracies in
> > Europe in the 1930s??? And that there was a war in Spain drawing attention
> > and polarizing the oppinions?
>
> What I meant to say was most Europeans that were part of the League of Nations.
> (i.e. the democracies)
There was a considerable number of non-democracies in the LoN... in part,
perhaps that may have helped to prevent any concerted action at the time.
But then again, the LoN had no real power to sanction intervention, unlike
the UN has nowadays.
> > > > > Do you know why France did not enforce the demilitrized zone in
> > > > > Germany?
> > > >
> > > > Because it had internal problems to attend. The depression was not US
> > > > exclusive, you know...
> > > > And they were trusting the Maginot line - which ultimately failed due to
> > > > lack of other options for defense (like planes and tanks).
> > > >
> > > > > Because it would have cost the politicians the election.
> > > >
> > > > Such as backing out of this war now would do to Bush 43? :-P
> > >
> > > Actually I think supporting the war will cost him the election.
> >
> > That's news to me. Why do you have that perspective, if I may ask?
>
> According to the polls:
> While 87 percent of Americans recognize that Saddam is or will be a significant
> threat, only 42 percent support action without the approval of the United
> Nations.
The UN approval has a rather high chance of being approved *in time*. You
see, Saddam has been lucky *so far* in this crisis, since he has kept his
actions to a level the Europeans are able to tolerate; but this cannot last
forever, because even the most hard-liner of pacifists cannot withstand
eternal stalling...
> > > > > Untill such time as all dictorships and oppressive governments are removed • from
> > > > > the Earth; peace is and will be a dangerous idealistic delusion.
> > > >
> > > > The difference between our POVs is that you prefer to actively chase the
> > > > dictators, and end up creating a cycle of "support one bad guy to help wipe
> > > > another one", à la Iran/Iraq in the eighties;
> > >
> > > Actually no, I mean the United Nations (not just the US) should internally
> > > eliminate all oppresive governments, then purge the remaining ones from the
> > > planet.
> >
> > Wouldn't that be anarchy? If so, would the people of the world be prepared
> > for it, whenever it were attempted? I think not now, nor in a foreseeable
> > future.
> >
> > > Yes it would have a tremendous cost, but in the long run it is the only
> > > way to insure all the people of the world live in freedom. Untill that • happens
> > > true peace is impossiple.
> >
> > The sad thing that hinders your argument (which was at one point shared by
> > me, I admit), is the intrinsecal animal nature of the Human kind: we need
> > hierarchy. We, as a species, cannot cohexist without laws enforced by
> > someone with authority. And here enters Churchill's sentece, "Democracy is
> > wicked, but beats all other available options" (dunno the exact quote,
> > please forgive me for that)
> > Hopefully in time this feature of the Human kind will evolve; but it won't
> > be in our lifetime, sadly :-(
>
> I think you misunderstood, after removing dictatorships one has to educate the
> people as to how to operate under a democracy where they actually have freedom
> but not oppression or anarcy.
After?
I'd say *before* and *during* a dictatorship, even if it means such
education has to be made "underground". And this I know from my parents' own
experience, they had to learn how to live democratically after a revolution
and almost made the mistake to undergo another dictatorship...
The people must be given the will for democracy *before* that form of
government is achieved, so that it can last the first few months without chaos.
> > > > I, on the other hand, prefer
> > > > to *avoid NEW bad guys* while waiting for Mother Nature to kill the current
> > > > ones :-)
> > > >
> > > > A parallell can be drawn: you pursue healing of the disease and I seek the
> > > > vaccine for it. They are not incompatible, but my success can get you out of
> > > > work ;-)
> > >
> > > I wish that would work, I really do. However, history shows that it never • has.
> >
> > Neither have wars, for that matter, otherwise there would be no despots by
> > now.
>
> Ok so Germany and Japan now being peaceful democracies are not far better off
> then they were before?
Need I remind you that one of the consequences of having the Bundesrepublik
Deutschland as a free nation meant that Democratik Deutsche Republik had to
suffer 45 years of single party rule? And that to have Japan on the
"Western" field meant that there is a war in Korea to this day?
My point: yes, the people in those countries were better off after the war.
But at what cost to *others*?
> > Dictators are like mushrooms, popping up in dark lit areas and growing
> > underground until someone notices them... it's futile to think they can be
> > erradicated, even with the most enduring commitment put to the task.
>
> That is the whole point, if everyone were represented via democratic
> governments you would not have this problem.
This problem (dictators) is there even under democratic rule, despite being
easier to spot. Le Pen got to 2nd round in the french election, did he not?
And Chávez was elected in Venezuela *democratically*, which is hard to
swallow even now.
If we want to avoid a dictatorship, it is not enough to have a democracy; we
also need to wish that democracy endures. And there is a number of "rotten"
democracies in the world, where the people are not keen about the system
(and if the people of "nation X" do not want democracy, how does one
convince them otherwise?)
> > Back to the present, I'll settle for military intervention as a last
> > resource; under current information available to the general public,
> > intervention is not necessary *at this time*. It can *become* necessary, or
> > not - the pressure exercized by the military buildup in the Gulf is very,
> > very important at this stage; but another thing is important... "dear Mr.
> > Bush, please don't mess up shooting the first shot"
>
> I think we should clean up the obviously (to me anyway) dangerous mess Bush Sr.
> and Clinton left festering for us to deal with now. Again my only objection is
> that Bush Jr. will not rebuild thus making the whole thing irrelevant. In
> that case we might as well do nothing and wait for Saddam to make a really big
> problem. Then we can deal with it when it is a matter of personal survival. At
> least then the general public would support action then.
It won't get to that point.
I remember Ronald Reagan making a speech about the Empire of Evil (then, the
USSR), which had WoMD and could try to launch them anytime, so he proposed
SDI. The thing is, the Soviet Union had *no intention* of starting a war:
even those hardliners at the Politburo *knew* that MAD was the best defense
for both sides of the Iron Curtain during the Cold War!
And that's exactly what will grant us security. Iraqis know they may have
WoMD, but they also realize they cannot use them without falling victims to
the same sort of armament. India and Pakistan have been discovering just
that in the past 5 years, they both know they cannot start a nuclear war
because both can be destroyed - rending the A-bombs so hardly paid for
virtually useless as effective weapons.
In case conflict eventually occurs, I do understand what you mean with the
importance of reconstruction. A destroyed Iraq will fuel unrest in the
region, obviously. But the worst part is, how will the Provisional
Government both secure control of internal affairs and resist foreign
influences? (ie, Iran, Turkey, Kurds) It's a very dangerous powderkeg that
is being created, and its chance of success is relatively low in the long run.
What if it does work? What will be the external repercussions? Won't Syria
feel threatened in turn? Or Iran? Both have been slowly (1) making
democratic reforms in the last years, is it worth to risk all that?
Pedro
(1) - and peacefully. All it took on both cases was for the "big boss" to
die, remarkably of natural causes. Their successors are a lot less commited
to politics than they are to economics... long live pragmatism! :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no location to destroy? Why let Iraq get them in the first place? I don't really want to find out what they may or may not do with them. (...) I heard on the local news radio (...) (21 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) What I meant to say was most Europeans that were part of the League of Nations. (i.e. the democracies) (...) According to the polls: While 87 percent of Americans recognize that Saddam is or will be a significant threat, only 42 percent (...) (21 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
