News Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

[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?

 

[Mercator]

From the CIA World Factbook:
The Czech Republic is one of the most stable and prosperous of the post-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. Growth in 2000-04 was supported by exports to the EU, primarily to Germany, and a strong recovery of foreign and domestic investment. Domestic demand is playing an ever more important role in underpinning growth as interest rates drop and the availability of credit cards and mortgages increases. Current account deficits of around 5% of GDP are beginning to decline as demand for Czech products in the European Union increases. Inflation is under control. Recent accession to the EU gives further impetus and direction to structural reform. In early 2004 the government passed increases in the Value Added Tax (VAT) and tightened eligibility for social benefits with the intention to bring the public finance gap down to 4% of GDP by 2006, but more difficult pension and healthcare reforms will have to wait until after the next elections. Privatization of the state-owned telecommunications firm Cesky Telecom is scheduled to take place in 2005. Intensified restructuring among large enterprises, improvements in the financial sector, and effective use of available EU funds should strengthen output growth.

The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU. Other east Euroepan countries are following. The only example even stronger than this one is the transformation of Turkey. Turkey wants to be a player in the European garden. For this, they even reinstated the Kurds as equal Turkish citizens. Te Kurds have been persecuted for ages. This enormous change happened without military intervention. The only thing it costs us is the price of solidarity. For making a more perfect and equal "network Europe", we are paying the price in the West of the Union. But we knwo that in the long term it's the only way possible. Americans prefer to keep their GDP high with all means. Just an observation.

 

[Rev Prez]

The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU.

It's a prime example of the transformative force of the collapse of Soviet influence in the Eastern Bloc, a process which took two generations to complete. The EU had nothing to do with the Velvet revolution. Either way, we're not talking about a dictatorship here.

The only example even stronger than this one is the transformation of Turkey.

Turkey was not and is not a dictatorship.

This enormous change happened without military intervention.

Lots of things experience enormous change without military intervention. We didn't have to intervene militarily in South Africa to end apartheid, nor in Israel to secure the roadmap. What's your point?

Rev Prez

 

[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?

Why would I? It is in no way related to this discussion.

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.

Unattended dictatorships have a poor track of turning. You continue to confuse dictatorship with other sorts of political abuse, and then picking examples of totalitarian states that took sixty to seventy years to reform.

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

Before 1999, Milosevic was a dictator in Yugoslavia. After the Kosovo intervention, his regime fell and was replaced by a democratic government.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Before 1999, Milosevic was a dictator in Yugoslavia. After the Kosovo intervention, his regime fell and was replaced by a democratic government.

Rev Prez

No he wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic

 

[Rev Prez]

No he wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic

Uh, yes he was.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Uh, yes he was.

Rev Prez

Slobodan Milošević was first elected President of Serbia by the National Assembly in 1989.

Milošević presided over the transformation of the League of Communists of Serbia into the Socialist Party of Serbia (July 1990) and the adoption of a new Serbian constitution (September 1990) providing for the direct election of a president with increased powers. Milošević was subsequently re-elected president of the Serbian Republic in the direct elections of December 1990 and December 1992.

says in Wikipedia he was elected

 

[Rev Prez]

says in Wikipedia he was elected

Which means what?

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Which means what?

Rev Prez

Oh well, we'll play semantics then. :zzz: As you contrasted dictatorship with democracy I presume you are using the term dictator in the modern popular 'hard' sense of an unelected leader who seizes power as opposed to a democracy whereby the leaders are elected; rather than in the old 'soft' Roman dictator sense whereby dictators were elected in time of national emergency for terms of 6 months.

 

[russ_watters]

The Milosevich situation is very similar to the Hitler one - the fact that either won an election once upon a time has nothing to do with whether or not they were dictators. The fact of the matter is that they were and they did sieze that power. The power they were given in the elections was not the same power that they eventually siezed.

 

[Art]

The Milosevich situation is very similar to the Hitler one - the fact that either won an election once upon a time has nothing to do with whether or not they were dictators. The fact of the matter is that they were and they did sieze that power. The power they were given in the elections was not the same power that they eventually siezed.

Sorry Russ but you are wrong;

Milošević presided over the transformation of the League of Communists of Serbia into the Socialist Party of Serbia (July 1990) and the adoption of a new Serbian constitution (September 1990) providing for the direct election of a president with increased powers. Milošević was subsequently re-elected president of the Serbian Republic in the direct elections of December 1990 and December 1992.

In the first free parliamentary elections of December 1990, Milošević's Socialist Party won 80.5% of the vote. The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo largely boycotted the election, effectively eliminating even what little opposition Milošević had. Milošević himself won the presidential election with even higher percentage of the vote.

Incidentally Hitler didn't seize dictatorial powers either he was granted them legally following a vote in the Reichstag on the 23rd March 1933 where he achieved the 2/3 majority necessary. This was followed up by a public plebiscite ratifying the changes which received 90% approval. So from that point of view they are similar.

 

[Mercator]

It's a prime example of the transformative force of the collapse of Soviet influence in the Eastern Bloc, a process which took two generations to complete. The EU had nothing to do with the Velvet revolution. Either way, we're not talking about a dictatorship here.



Turkey was not and is not a dictatorship.



Lots of things experience enormous change without military intervention. We didn't have to intervene militarily in South Africa to end apartheid, nor in Israel to secure the roadmap. What's your point?

Rev Prez

You just made it. Thanks. Your invasion of Iraq does not lead anywhere, while everywhere in the world you see examples of tarnsformations that came about without violence.
And if you don't see the role of Europe in the Czech velvet revolution, (which was not the point), then I don't see the role of the US in the Dominican republic. A typical mistake of people on your side of the ocean:You're not aware of what's going on in Europe unless violence attracts your attention and then you still don't understand it,
Let me put it one more time: it's the attraction of the EU that provided the single biggest tranformative power for people in the former East block to change their future.

 

[Mercator]

Oh well, we'll play semantics then. :zzz: As you contrasted dictatorship with democracy I presume you are using the term dictator in the modern popular 'hard' sense of an unelected leader who seizes power as opposed to a democracy whereby the leaders are elected; rather than in the old 'soft' Roman dictator sense whereby dictators were elected in time of national emergency for terms of 6 months.

He's using the terms as it suits him, but he still cannot proof his point. Let me help him a bit: Unattended dictatorships by black females over 2m tall married to Chinese weight lifting champions have a poor track record of change.
I think I would agree with that.

 

[Rev Prez]

You just made it.

I don't think so.

Your invasion of Iraq does not lead anywhere...

And you base this on the fact that the American president changes every four years?

it's the attraction of the EU that provided the single biggest tranformative power for people in the former East block to change their future.

Which, of course, is complete bull.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Oh well, we'll play semantics then.

Let's not. Instead let's pretend you're enterprising enough to look up the dictionary definitions already provided in the thread.

As you contrasted dictatorship with democracy I presume you are using the term dictator in the modern popular 'hard' sense of an unelected leader who seizes power...

Which is not the definition of dictator either in the dictionary or in IR.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

I don't think so.



And you base this on the fact that the American president changes every four years?



Which, of course, is complete bull.

Rev Prez

Thank you, but you did, even if you don't realize it. Others will notice how your turn in circles.

Listen, I do not appreciate such cynicism when Iraqi people are suffering because of your arrogance.

Again: you understand nothing about Europe, keep on sleeping. QED.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry Russ but you are wrong;

Sounds great if those (and others that followed) are legitimate elections. Do you also believe that Hussein's elections were legitimate? Milosevich did as most dictators did: he tried to manipulate elections to give himself the appearance of legitimacy. Milosevich attempted in 1996 to annul an election that didn't go his way. He was almost overthrown then. And with that act, any claim to legitimacy of his rule ended.

Incidentally Hitler didn't seize dictatorial powers either he was granted them legally following a vote in the Reichstag on the 23rd March 1933 where he achieved the 2/3 majority necessary. This was followed up by a public plebiscite ratifying the changes which received 90% approval. So from that point of view they are similar.

Yes, as I know you believe that, but it doesn't make it true. For example, you leave out the fact that Hitler burned the Reichstag down on February 27, 1933. The fact that through propaganda and manipulation he wanted to give the appearance of legitimacy does not change the fact that the siezure was illegal.

 

[Art]

Sounds great if those (and others that followed) are legitimate elections. Do you also believe that Hussein's elections were legitimate? Milosevich did as most dictators did: he tried to manipulate elections to give himself the appearance of legitimacy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the irony in a 'Shrubite' questioning the legitimacy of other countries' elections.

Yes, as I know you believe that, but it doesn't make it true.

Russ, we are not talking 'beliefs' here, the way Hitler rose to power is a historical fact. Check it out for yourself if you think I'm inventing it

 

[Art]

Which is not the definition of dictator either in the dictionary or in IR.

Rev Prez

Well, my pseudo-intellectual Prez if you want to use strict dictionary definitions rather than popular usage then 'shrub' is also a dictator.

 

[Rev Prez]

Thank you, but you did, even if you don't realize it. Others will notice how your turn in circles.

Others will notice you argue that dictatorships can transition peacefully because non-dictatorships do. Whether dishonesty or rank ignorance is behind this latest crazy outburst of yours remains to be seen.

Again: you understand nothing about Europe, keep on sleeping.

The Velvet Revolution spread in 1989, three years before the Maastricht was signed. This is getting old real quick.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Well, my pseudo-intellectual Prez if you want to use strict dictionary definitions rather than popular usage then 'shrub' is also a dictator.

Not that I expect this to actually get through to you, but American executive authority is restricted by constitution and opposition in both law and fact. Therefore, President Bush does not meet the definition's criteria for unrestricted, one man rule.

Rev Prez