News Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

[russ_watters]

No, not really, and although for some this is difficult to understand, all the difference resides there: "moral authority".
Japan and Germany had agressed the US, and they lost, which means that the winner, which defended himself, had moral authority. Someone who defends himself always has higher moral authority than the agressor (whether for the "right" or "wrong" causes).

...But that's totally lacking in Iraq. The US is the agressor ; you don't have the world's approval ; you don't have this crushing overmight. In other words, you don't have an once of moral authority in Iraq.

Well, whether we finished what we started in 1991 or in 2003, does it really matter? Saddam was an agressor and he never lived up to the peace agreement made in 1991. How quickly we [choose to] forget!

That, plus the fact that it wasn't just the US, it was almost the whole world (being in a large international coalition also gives moral authority) who wanted Japan (not Germany, it was already a democracy) to have a "regime change" helped a lot.

Morality by committee? No thanks. The world quite often makes wrong decisions or simply doesn't have the guts to do what's right. The nations of Europe happily gave Hitler country after country to the east in hopes he'd never turn west (oops). That's some real moral courage.

Well, there are a lot of failed situations in South America,

The US has never made such an attempt in South America.

...there are quite some failures in Africa (but who cares)...

Well, you should care - a great many of them are former French colonies. But again, none of them have ever been under the US's domain.

...and in the middle east (think of Saoudi Arabia, again, and many Gulf states: rich, but not necessarily democracies!)

Once more with feeling - the only country in the Middle East that the US has tried to shape in her image is Israel - and lo and behold - Israel is a stable, prosperous democracy. The rest have never been under the US's domain.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single country the US has attempted a Marshall-Plan style reconstruction where we failed to turn out a stable, prosperous democracy (well, there have only been half a dozen or so). In addition, a number of countries in Eastern Europe modeled themselves after us and have done quite well for themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

My point is same as vanesch, it doesn't matter if they are cruel dictators, if they use chemical weapons, if they invade other countrys, if they are democracies or dictatorships,if they are comunist or capitalists... all that matters is if they "have american interests as a priority" or said in another way, if they are US puppet goverments or not.

Burnsys, do you know nothing of international politics? You should - what you are describing is international politics. That's how it works. Its how every country works. You're making an utterly pointless argument.

Yes, the US aided Saddam Hussein in the '80s in order to maintain a stable stalemate between Iraq and Iran. News flash: so did just about every other country with the means to do so: including France and the USSR. The US did it to counter the USSR, the USSR did it to counter the US, and France did it for profit.

 

[Informal Logic]

People outside the US know far more about world affairs than the average American. Oh, but I forgot there are some who think they know everything and everyone else is ignorant.

Update:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8387168/

Bush seeks to set ‘clear path forward’ on war
President rejects timetable for withdrawal, saying the struggle 'is worth it'

Bush mentioned the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks five times during his address, prompting some Democrats to accuse him of falsely reviving the link that he originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad.

<Insert Profanity Of Choice Here>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8399147/

Iraqis mixed on Bush's pledge on U.S. forces
Citizens divided over presence of foreign troops in war-torn country

Iraqi PM: 'No country accepts having foreign troops'

“We want the foreign troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible,” al-Jaafari was quoted as telling the newspaper in an interview. “No country accepts having foreign troops on its lands because this indicates our inability to defend our country and our acknowledgment that there is a security problem.”
-----------
Real estate agent Ali al-Jibouri, 45, disagreed, saying that only Iraqi politicians are benefiting from the foreign presence. “Everything was plotted by the Iraqi politicians who came from abroad to prolong the time of the occupation because it will serve their personal interests,” al-Jibouri said.
-----------
“We haven’t felt any change since the transfer of authority last year, and the reason behind that is the lack of a withdrawal timetable,” said Saeed Yasin Moussa, 52, an employee at the Oil Ministry. “The timetable can lessen the psychological pressure on the Iraqi people.”
-----------
“The transfer of authority was a great dream, but nothing took place,” said Samah Abdul Mihsen, a 24-year-old housewife who lives in a middle-class neighborhood in Baghdad. “Bush does not want to pull out the American forces although we can defend our country. There are so many problems because of the presence of foreign troops.”

Etc.

 

[vanesch]

Well, whether we finished what we started in 1991 or in 2003, does it really matter? Saddam was an agressor and he never lived up to the peace agreement made in 1991. How quickly we [choose to] forget!

The case wasn't so clear, in fact: Kuwait violated an international agreement with Iraq (pumping in a common oil field) ; the US ambassador's wordings let Saddam understand that he had kind of indifferent permission to invade Kuwait, as long as he didn't touch Saoudi Arabia.

The US has never made such an attempt in South America.

A lot of "regime changes" were worked by the US - although indeed, no large scale military invasion took place. There was no need: the dictators served US interests much better than any democracy which would flirt with communism/socialism. And when they did, the democracy also needed a regime change.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single country the US has attempted a Marshall-Plan style reconstruction where we failed to turn out a stable, prosperous democracy (well, there have only been half a dozen or so).

It has to be once a first time. You never lost a war... until Vietnam.

Again, I didn't mean to say that changing Iraq in a stable, prospering democracy is, by itself, such a bad thing to do (even though I think one should leave people deal with their own business). The point is that that goal is almost unreachable the way you guys tried to do it, and the explanation for that was my stuff on "moral authority". It wasn't a qualifier of whether the ultimate goal was morally good or bad (even though one could discuss about it). It was the explanation of why this whole project is failing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You know I'd kinda be interested to hear what people have to say about the subject of the thread. You know... How would a turn around in the situation in Iraq possibly have occurred if the US had not invaded?
I don't think that an invasion was the only way personally so please don't take this as some sort of defense of the US invasion. I seriously want to know what people think.
And I know that the Penguin stated the subject differantly but I'm pretty sure this is what he meant.
Oh and please stop the flow of reason's why the US invasion was wrong. We've all heard it several times now in several different threads, it's not the subject of the this thread.

 

[Mercator]

In addition, a number of countries in Eastern Europe modeled themselves after us and have done quite well for themselves.

That's untrue. Eastern Europe is modeled after Western Europe and is/will be integrated in the EU.

 

[Rev Prez]

Burnsys, do you know nothing of international politics?

Few people here do, yourself included. See why below.

You should - what you are describing is international politics. That's how it works. Its how every country works.

An untenable claim. Realist theories, like any other theory in the other three image paradigms, are highly conditional. International relations studies a cornucopia of these models under a stringent set of assumptions that are geographically and temporally constrained. Arguably, institutionalist theories have had the most practical and wide reaching consequences, although that's a great deal of well documented international interaction centers on law.

You're making an utterly pointless argument.

That said, you're right. Burnsys is making an utterly pointless argument.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

You know... How would a turn around in the situation in Iraq possibly have occurred if the US had not invaded?

There's no evidence that it would have. What do you think is the track record of unattended dictatorships turning?

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

There's no evidence that it would have. What do you think is the track record of unattended dictatorships turning?

Rev Prez

The track record must be very good. ALL democracies today once have been dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies in their past. Very few of them changed by invasions by foreign nations. Countries where others interfered are often STILL dictatorships, just like what will happen with Iraq.

 

[russ_watters]

The case wasn't so clear, in fact: Kuwait violated an international agreement with Iraq (pumping in a common oil field) ; the US ambassador's wordings let Saddam understand that he had kind of indifferent permission to invade Kuwait, as long as he didn't touch Saoudi Arabia.

Omg, you actually believe that, don't you? Wait, wasn't France part of the coalition...?

No, vanesch, the 1991 war was not some border dispute (well heck, you tell me - is that a legitimate reason to annex a country?), it was the first step in an attempt by Saddam to take over the entire Arabian peninsula. Saddam owed Kuait and Saudia Arabia (among others) a lot of money after they helped him finance the Iran/Iraq war and rather than pay it back, he was just going to take them over.

The oft-cited approval of the US is similarly bogus: Saddam misread the reaction of our ambasador and made a big mistake. Yes, that's right, it was Saddam's mistake, not ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Iraq_and_the_United_States_pre-war

A lot of "regime changes" were worked by the US - although indeed, no large scale military invasion took place.

So... you agree that your previous assertion was incorrect?

It has to be once a first time. You never lost a war... until Vietnam.

So... you agree that your previous assertion was incorrect? But this does bring up a new point: yes, there has to be a first time for everything. So you tell me why you think this will be the first time the US fails to create a functioning democracy through an invasion and Marshall-Plan style reconstruction.

Again, I didn't mean to say that changing Iraq in a stable, prospering democracy is, by itself, such a bad thing to do (even though I think one should leave people deal with their own business). The point is that that goal is almost unreachable the way you guys tried to do it, and the explanation for that was my stuff on "moral authority".

What does the method/justification have to do with the outcome?

 

[russ_watters]

The track record must be very good. ALL democracies today once have been dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies in their past. Very few of them changed by invasions by foreign nations.

But such changes usually take hundreds of years and require the deaths of whole families of monarchs. The point is that as long as Saddam lived, the odds of Iraq becoming a democracy were virtually nonexistant.

Countries where others interfered are often STILL dictatorships, just like what will happen with Iraq.

Iraq is already a democracy, Mercator. What makes you think it'll go back to being a dictatorship?

 

[russ_watters]

You know I'd kinda be interested to hear what people have to say about the subject of the thread. You know... How would a turn around in the situation in Iraq possibly have occurred if the US had not invaded?
I don't think that an invasion was the only way personally so please don't take this as some sort of defense of the US invasion. I seriously want to know what people think.

My personal opinion is that the only way a regime change would have happened in Iraq would have been for Saddam to die of old age (see:Castro, 99% of all dictators in history). After that, odds are extremely high that he would be followed by another military dictator (see: 99% of all dictators in history).

Oh and please stop the flow of reason's why the US invasion was wrong. We've all heard it several times now in several different threads, it's not the subject of the this thread.

I think you're missing a fundamental issue here: people would rather attack our methods/motivation and defend a murderous dictator (vanesch, saying Hussein was justified in annexing Kuwait) than have the moral courage to support what is right. What you (and the thread title) are asking requires people to admit something they don't want to admit: that had the US not taken him down, Saddam would probably have remained in power until dying of old age.

People are so afraid of the US becoming an empire, they will simply refuse to look beyond their perception of our motivations and examine whether what we did is really a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[vanesch]

No, vanesch, the 1991 war was not some border dispute (well heck, you tell me - is that a legitimate reason to annex a country?), it was the first step in an attempt by Saddam to take over the entire Arabian peninsula. Saddam owed Kuait and Saudia Arabia (among others) a lot of money after they helped him finance the Iran/Iraq war and rather than pay it back, he was just going to take them over.

The oft-cited approval of the US is similarly bogus: Saddam misread the reaction of our ambasador and made a big mistake. Yes, that's right, it was Saddam's mistake, not ours.

Some clarifications: I agree with you that such a border dispute is no reason to annex a country, and I think you (and a lot of others) where right to push him out of there. But the point was the following: even though the reading error was on Saddam's part, and it was indeed his mistake, I don't think that he really WANTED to piss of the US. He considered himself a kind of ally of the US (but wanted to take some local liberties and did some wishful thinking when reading the not-so-very-firm US answer).

So you tell me why you think this will be the first time the US fails to create a functioning democracy through an invasion and Marshall-Plan style reconstruction.

I told you: in the eyes of the people over there (and a lot of the rest of the world) you don't have any moral authority left, which is an essential part in such a plan. That's why it is failing. And that's why it worked in Japan, in Israel and in some other places, where you were considered to have such moral authority, for various reasons. That's why it started to work in Afghanistan, where you had that moral authority (self-defense) and why now it is sucked down because of the amalgam that is made with Iraq.

 

[vanesch]

My personal opinion is that the only way a regime change would have happened in Iraq would have been for Saddam to die of old age (see:Castro, 99% of all dictators in history). After that, odds are extremely high that he would be followed by another military dictator (see: 99% of all dictators in history).

Some counter examples: most East-European countries. Spain. Greece. Chili... So many dictatorships were turned into democracies by the people themselves, once their "uncle" pulled the plug. No grand scale military invasion was necessary. Sometimes it can take long. Sometimes it goes faster. Doesn't matter: it is my firm opinion that when a people takes (finally) his own destiny in its hands, that the result is always much better than foreign import with bombs and guns. Ok, sometimes you have to wait 20 years. So what ?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Some counter examples: most East-European countries. Spain. Greece. Chili... So many dictatorships were turned into democracies by the people themselves, once their "uncle" pulled the plug. No grand scale military invasion was necessary. Sometimes it can take long. Sometimes it goes faster. Doesn't matter: it is my firm opinion that when a people takes (finally) his own destiny in its hands, that the result is always much better than foreign import with bombs and guns. Ok, sometimes you have to wait 20 years. So what ?

Precisely, and this is the root of the argument pro-invasion members continue to avoid. How long was the Shah in power? Or Marcos? It is NOT US foreign policy to invade countries for purposes of regime change, which is illegal anyway. So why do pro-invasion members keep justifying the war based on removal of a ruthless dictator?

And as vanesh states, one can see many examples, such as Castro that ultimately has posed no real threat to US security--and certainly Saddam posed no 'clear and present danger' to the US either. Why should Americans pay the high price, and when we do, what makes anyone think the country we assist will embrace our ideal of government anyway?

I am beginning to think a study should be done on the water people are drinking. Something has been affecting their brains so that no matter how many times this is explained to them, they still do not get it.

 

[Burnsys]

So why do pro-invasion members keep justifying the war based on removal of a ruthless dictator?

As russ confirmed, Beign a rutless dictator is not a motive for regime change becouse us has supported and support a lot of other rutless dictators...
So that is not a valid justification for war...

It seem to be the way international politics works...

 

[Smurf]

My personal opinion is that the only way a regime change would have happened in Iraq would have been for Saddam to die of old age (see:Castro, 99% of all dictators in history). After that, odds are extremely high that he would be followed by another military dictator (see: 99% of all dictators in history).

I don't know about that Russ, what makes you think 99% of all dictators are preceeded by more dictators? I mean, I guess you could justify that figure by counting every single monarchy in the past 4000 years, but certainly the recent global trend has been to democracy has it not? In fact, there has been at least 5 successful, non-violent, democratic revolutions in the last 6 years. See: Kyrgystan (2005), Ukrain (2004), Georgia (2003), Phillipines (2001), Serbia (2000). Each one of these has produced democratic elections with less controversy than the US elections and in less time than it took the US in iraq. Not to mention, that they were all effectively non-violent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDSA_II

Let's not forget, of course, all the revolutions through the 1980s and 90s that overthrew the many dictatorships left over from former communist blocs.

Having said that: Democracy sux

--
Remember kids, wiki is your friend.

 

[Burnsys]

And you are forgetting all us backed dictatorships in latin amercia in the 70'..

Now we live in democracy (Some kind of ilusion of democracy) but well, democracy at last...

 

[Smurf]

Yup, like I said (or did I say this?) that's just a taste of the democratic movement recently. No history student worth their money is going to say that democracy isn't taking hold on all 7 of our precious Earth's continents... well, the 6 with people on them at least.

 

[Rev Prez]

The track record must be very good. ALL democracies today once have been dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies...

Totalitarian monarchy is a term without meaning in IR. And totalitarianism is native to the 20th century. Let's concentrate on dictatorship. You want to try again?

Rev Prez

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some counter examples: most East-European countries. Spain. Greece. Chili... So many dictatorships were turned into democracies by the people themselves, once their "uncle" pulled the plug. No grand scale military invasion was necessary. Sometimes it can take long. Sometimes it goes faster. Doesn't matter: it is my firm opinion that when a people takes (finally) his own destiny in its hands, that the result is always much better than foreign import with bombs and guns. Ok, sometimes you have to wait 20 years. So what ?

Twenty years... you're kidding right? In those areas which you have mentioned it took centuries. The people rose up to take their own destiny into their hands several times and the majority of these movements through out history have been rather violently and effectively crushed. In recent years, now you have a point but it took all those hundereds of years for the playing field to become leveled and for there to be other countries, without dictators/monarches, to assist and support the minor revolutions that probably wouldn't have succeeded without that support. To leave them to their own devices they would have failed or possibly just become banana republics.
So again the question is what sort of action on the part of the world community, if not invasion, should be taken to promote such revolutions and regime changes, violent or non? Say in this particular scenario with Saddam?

And I agree Russ that most likely Saddam would most likely have to be dead. That doesn't mean though that the world must wait for the man to die of old age. In this particular case there probably would have needed to be a military coup of some sort. Assasination would have only had him replaced by another dictator from his same regime but possibly not someone so strong willed. At any rate if the US had backed a military coup or someone wishing to assasinate him we would probably still be in a similar boat so far as international perception of the US. Just instead of being called a bully the US would be called a snake in the grass.

 

[Rev Prez]

Some counter examples: most East-European countries. Spain. Greece.

This Eastern european countries were never under dictatorships, although they were totalitarian. The Soviets had one dictator, Stalin, and so have the Cubans. The North Koreans have had two. Mao doesn't even rate, and his rule while strong was still subject to the consensus of an admittedly weak central committee. On the other hand, the majority of African nations have had succeeding dictatorial regimes.

Rev Prez

 

[2CentsWorth]

...The point is that as long as Saddam lived, the odds of Iraq becoming a democracy were virtually nonexistant.

It would have been much more compelling if there had been some revolutionary movement within the country for the US to assist. In the meantime, people were not starving or being slaughtered in mass with exception of the incident in the south. There are always areas in the world where people are oppressed, suffering from violence, etc. -- some far worse than Iraq. Do you believe the US should invade all these places for purposes of regime change?

Iraq is already a democracy, Mercator. What makes you think it'll go back to being a dictatorship?

Iraq is a democracy? Geez, it's a good thing you said so, otherwise who would have known? If Iraq was allowed to be a sovereign nation, what makes you think it would not go back to a dictatorship (although probably Islamic in nature)?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://english.iraqdemparty.org/

 

[Mercator]

Totalitarian monarchy is a term without meaning in IR. And totalitarianism is native to the 20th century. Let's concentrate on dictatorship. You want to try again?

Rev Prez

So you are saying that you don't see the difference between Kaizer Wilhelm and King Albert of Belgium? A "totalitarian monarchy" expresses exactly what I mean, and most people would understand it. Good try, but let's go back to the discussion.

 

[Mercator]

Iraq is already a democracy, Mercator. What makes you think it'll go back to being a dictatorship?

Russ, I'm afraid that there are only two outcomes for Iraq: either a long term sustained occupation, or a real handover of power to the Iraqis, in which case extremism will without any doubt prevail. I don't see any chance for democracy in Iraq if it's left on it's own.
I see a ray of hope though, in that during the last Iraq meeting in Brussels, EU and UN pledged to join forces with the US to solve the Iraq problem. Face it, sustained presence of Americans alone, will only broaden resistance .The perception of the Iraqi people has to change from"being occupied" to being helped.

 

[Smurf]

dictatorship
n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

totaltarian
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

monarchy
n : an autocracy governed by a monarch who usually inherits the authority


The difference is insignificant in this discussion, if one exists at all.
www.dictionary.com

 

[vanesch]

It would have been much more compelling if there had been some revolutionary movement within the country for the US to assist. In the meantime, people were not starving or being slaughtered in mass with exception of the incident in the south. There are always areas in the world where people are oppressed, suffering from violence, etc. -- some far worse than Iraq. Do you believe the US should invade all these places for purposes of regime change?

Yes, I'm exactly on the same wavelength. I think there's a big difference between HELPING a people changing THEIR regime, and IMPOSING a regime change. Now, I know the objection to this: with Saddam in power, there was not much hope for an internal change for the time being. I know. So be it. It simply means you have to wait, and try to improve the situation, slowly. There was no urge. For instance, by lifting the sanctions, and by trying to get Iraq out of its isolation, and put pressure on him to respect more human rights, things could become better. It seems that sanctions for too long a time just confort the local dictator in its cruel attitudes: look at Cuba !
I take again the example of Libya: although Kadhafi can hardly be seen better than Saddam, his slow re-integration in the international community improves the life of the Libyans. So by judiciously playing the game of pressure, sanctions and reintegration, I think you can slowly improve things, and in the long run, this works way better than by brute force.

Now, one can object to this that such an approach is not efficient, not clear, etc... I admit that I don't know the exact best way of dealing with a guy like Saddam. But it is not because I don't know for sure how to heal a cancer, that this justifies hitting the patient on his head with a hammer!

 

[Mercator]

Yes, I'm exactly on the same wavelength. I think there's a big difference between HELPING a people changing THEIR regime, and IMPOSING a regime change. !

Yes, what a pity that the immensely brave Chalabi never had the guts to fight the Iraqi regime without his pockets stuffed by the US. Come to think of it, even AFTER his posckets were stuffed.
Did anybody here ever think about the fact that the situation in Iraq is not a balck and white one, with the good guys waiting to defeat the bad guys? Two years quagmire and Americans STILL are making the same thinking mistake.

 

[vanesch]

Two years quagmire and Americans STILL are making the same thinking mistake.

That's because the other neuron is occupied pulling the trigger

 

[Smurf]

Two years quagmire and Americans STILL are making the same thinking mistake.

Can't really blame them. I mean, you've seen CNN and FOX right? That kind of news reporting is the only thing available to most Americans, they're being conditioned from birth to see the American way now.

 

[Mercator]

Can't really blame them. I mean, you've seen CNN and FOX right? That kind of news reporting is the only thing available to most Americans, they're being conditioned from birth to see the American way now.

But I still like them. It's a bit like a younger brother on drugs. He starts to live in his own world, cannot do without the drugs and does not care if he has to deal and steal to maintain his exhuberant lifestyle. He mistakes the freedom to enjoy life (democracy) with a necessity to force his drugged lifestyle upon others (invasion) Sometimes you want to beat the s*** out of him, but you keep on hoping he will return back to normal life. Right now he feels more an more isolated. If we don't care now he will turn paranoid. We have no choice but to help.

 

[Mercator]

Happy national day, BTW Smurf, although it's a day late. And thanks in name of my grandfather. Where I was born we had a Canadian tank standing in the middle of a crossroad the rememberthe liberation by your ancestors.

 

[Smurf]

Happy national day, BTW Smurf,

Thanks a lot.

although it's a day late.

Only in your time zone.

And thanks in name of my grandfather. Where I was born we had a Canadian tank standing in the middle of a crossroad the rememberthe liberation by your ancestors.

Hmmm.. ok, where are you from then? Netherlands?

 

[Mercator]

Thanks a lot.

Only in your time zone.

Hmmm.. ok, where are you from then? Netherlands?

Belgium, Antwerp.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Now, I know the objection to this: with Saddam in power, there was not much hope for an internal change for the time being. I know. So be it. It simply means you have to wait, and try to improve the situation, slowly. There was no urge. For instance, by lifting the sanctions, and by trying to get Iraq out of its isolation, and put pressure on him to respect more human rights, things could become better.

Ok! Now we're getting somewhere!
So give me an idea of what you think would have been a good strategy. Any one else feel free to jump in too.
The reason for the sanctions were to put pressure on Saddam. As you stated that plan of action didn't work out to well. On top of that he found a way around them by making under the table deals. Even that took a power shift in other countries for people to be investigated and put on trial if I remember correctly.
What ideas do you/did you have and do you know of any plans of action that anyone else had?
Again... I'm not looking to try to prove anything here. This is a sincere request for peoples ideas and opinions on the topic.
It's a really sad state that a worthy topic of discussion has for the most part been ignored so that we can continue to bash on Bush and America. And that's another thing. If you want to bash on Bush I don't care. If you want to bash on the admin and politicians or even a particular party have at. But please don't bash Americans in general. There are several people on these forums alone that are American and who agree with your assesment of the war and possibly many other things. To lump them in with every one else does them a disservice.

 

[vanesch]

What ideas do you/did you have and do you know of any plans of action that anyone else had?

Not really, I agree that it is a difficult situation. But other examples show that dictatorships become more solid and harsh under prolonged imposed isolation (Cuba...). That doesn't mean that sanctions weren't necessary, but they shouldn't last for 10 or more years. It also shows that "re-integrated" dictators, after a passage through isolation, soften their regime (Kadhafi).
Saddam wasn't an imminent military treat anymore ; one should have worked towards softening his regime (human rights and so on).

These were some arguments I vaguely remember during the discussions leading up to the Iraq war. I'd also be interested in hearing more specific proposals, I don't know if there were any.

Political liberty is not *that* important (it can wait), when enough human rights and so on start to be respected. And in the LONG run, people WILL get their chance to go for a regime change themselves (or are in fact relatively happy with how things are). After all, sometimes a democratic regime can be more asphixiating than an enlightened dictator: look at Iran, where a religious zealot was *democratically* elected!
And if all this fails, then there is always the odd guided missile which can hit a really nasty bastard's car, no ?

But please don't bash Americans in general.

Apart from the occasional stingy joke, I don't bash Americans in general and I don't dislike them, or anything. That has been discussed at length in the Anti-Americanism thread.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And if all this fails, then there is always the odd guided missile which can hit a really nasty bastard's car, no ?

Hassan Sabbah thought that assasination was preferable to all out war since it saved us the expense of soldiers lives.
I thought that such an option would be better myself. Though as I pointed out earlier the US, or whom ever really, would probably still be thought ill of for doing such a thing. It would definitely save a lot of trouble though.

The last comment wasn't directed specifically at you. When the specific word "americans" shows itself in the bashing it just sort of touches a nerve. Not so much for myself but for all of my friends and other good people here that don't deserve to be bashed on yet fall into that category being bashed.

 

[Rev Prez]

So you are saying that you don't see the difference between Kaizer Wilhelm and King Albert of Belgium?

Where did I say that?

A "totalitarian monarchy"...

...is a term you made up.

...and most people would understand it.

Of course, and most people would understand "whazzup." It doesn't mean that it has any meaning in IR.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

The difference is insignificant in this discussion, if one exists at all.

Where in the definition of monarchy is the qualification that the ruler governs absolutely, with no contraint by law or political opponents, or demands centralized control over "all aspects of life?" Is Queen Eliizabeth a dictator or a totalitarian? Where in the definition totalitarianism is it required that power fall to either a crown or any other individual authority? What in the definition requires a dictator to govern "all aspects of life" or to preside over a royal household?

Rev Prez

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Rev Prez, I'd have to agree that the distinction is minor. In practice either form of government can result in the same ends and abuses of power. Monarches have tended to be more concerned with the aproval of their fellow nobles than the people. Dictators have tended to be more concerned with the aproval of their generals than of their people. In both cases because they were worried about being assasinated or over thrown. And in both cases there are the exceptions where the people and potential revolution have been worrisome to the person(s) in power.
Arguing this particular bit of vocabulary isn't going to further this discussion.

 

[Mercator]

Where did I say that?



...is a term you made up.


Rev Prez

You are wrong. Type in "toatalitarian monarchy" in Google and you will find thousands of references, it's not because you don't get it that it does not exist. And now back to the topic.

 

[Rev Prez]

Rev Prez, I'd have to agree that the distinction is minor. In practice either form of government can result in the same ends and abuses of power.

The abusive nature of the government isn't relevant; structure is. One form of abusive state--the dictatorship--has a notorious longevity record; one that can be understood as a consequence of features unique to it and exclusive of totalitarian or royal regimes. Monarchy, of course, has even more staying power--totalitarianism has the worst record, with only a few states in the Middle East, Cuba, and North Korea with long-lived, well entrenched authoritarians hell bent on running peoples lives. Either way, monarchs aren't necessarily or even often dictators, dictators aren't inherently totalitarian, and totalitarian regimes--particularly of the Communist brand--were more often than not run by central committees; not single strongmen.

Arguing this particular bit of vocabulary isn't going to further this discussion.

No, it will. Mercator started this tangent by claiming that all democracies were at one point "dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies." The latter term is made up. It seems that Mercator would rather say that by present standards all democracies today descend from an abusive political and social structure; that, however, is not the point. Also, it's a bit irritating that he'd mention that all democracies descend from an abusive political past but fail to point out that it took centuries for that process to complete. Either way, my point still stands: unattended dictatorships have a poor track record of turning over.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

You are wrong.

Yes, I am. Its a made-up term you merely perpetuate.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

Yes, I am. Its a made-up term you merely perpetuate.

Rev Prez

"string theory" is also a made-up term , so I am in good company. Do you always spend so much energy on useless discussions?

 

[Mercator]

No, it will. Mercator started this tangent by claiming that all democracies were at one point "dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies." The latter term is made up. It seems that Mercator would rather say that by present standards all democracies today descend from an abusive political and social structure; that, however, is not the point. Also, it's a bit irritating that he'd mention that all democracies descend from an abusive political past but fail to point out that it took centuries for that process to complete. Either way, my point still stands: unattended dictatorships have a poor track record of turning over.

Rev Prez

Your point is not a point, but an opinion. My opinion is that "attended" dictatorships by outside forces have an even poorer track record and most often transform in other dictatorships, simply because there is no sufficient basis within to support democracy.
Yes, it takes time, but if not enough time is given to let democracy root into the society, all efforts of bringing democracy to a country are useless.
Why don't you give a few examples of countries where dictatorships have been successfully replaced by democracy?
I give you: Spain: it took a long time, but Franco eventually died and Spain is now a democratic country. Portugal: no external intervention. Poland: no external intervention. Chechia: no external intervention and so on and so on. Now show me some countries that have been invaded.

 

[Rev Prez]

Your point is not a point, but an opinion.

It is not an opinion. It is a conclusion informed by the evidence.

My opinion is that "attended" dictatorships by outside forces have an even poorer track record and most often transform in other dictatorships, simply because there is no sufficient basis within to support democracy.

So where's the table of evidence showing us that transforming dictatorships into democracies is more likely to fail than simply leaving them be.

Yes, it takes time, but if not enough time is given to let democracy root intdo the society, all efforts of bringing democracy to a country are useless.

Unless you have some way of giving tangible meaning to "time," then the above remark is superfluous.

Why don't you give a few examples of countries where dictatorships have been successfully replaced by democracy?

Germany. Yugoslavia. The Dominican Republic. Also every abusive regime you listed lasted at minimum for three decades. BTW, what does Chechnya have to do with anything? It's not a dictatorship. It's not even a country.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

It is not an opinion. It is a conclusion informed by the evidence.



So where's the table of evidence showing us that transforming dictatorships into democracies is more likely to fail than simply leaving them be.



Unless you have some way of giving tangible meaning to "time," then the above remark is superfluous.



Germany. Yugoslavia. The Dominican Republic. Also every abusive regime you listed lasted at minimum for three decades. BTW, what does Chechnya have to do with anything? It's not a dictatorship. It's not even a country.

Rev Prez

It's Chechia, the former part of Checho-Slovakia
Germany was a democratic republic before Hitler took power. And who in his righty mind would have attacked Germany in the late thirties, if this nut would not have had his crazy plan of world domination and started invading other countries?
Yougoslavia: you must be kidding.
Dominican republic: agree.

 

[Rev Prez]

It's Chechia, the former part of Checho-Slovakia.

Oh, the Czech Republic. So what's this Czech dictatorship you're going on about?

Germany was a democratic republic before Hitler took power.

So, what's your point?

Yougoslavia: you must be kidding.

No, I'm not.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

Oh, the Czech Republic. So what's this Czech dictatorship you're going on about?



So, what's your point?



No, I'm not.

Rev Prez

Sorry for the confusion,in my language it's Chech. Did you hear about the Soviet invasion in 1968? And the Velvet revolution in the late nineties? Are you going to claim US intervention for this too?

Germany can hardly be an example of your theory, if it already was a democratic republic and was only "attended" after Hitler was given free play for a decade or so.

Can you explain (in less than two book volumes) the situation in former Yugoslavia compared to now?