Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(08-11-2016, 06:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: (08-11-2016, 04:55 PM)David Horn Wrote: (08-10-2016, 01:18 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Assad is the closest thing there is to the "good guy" in Syria.
Not taking you even a little bit seriously, but, for the record, Assad has butchered several hundred thousand of his own citizens. Usually, we consider genocide to be at the top of the evil list, so your comment is simply bizarre and disgusting.
We even had his type in the run up to WW2 (although I think during the war most were either locked up, drafted then knocked into shape, or they simply shut up and laid low). The typical person with this attitude listened to Fr. Coughlin and was an America Firster. I heard the stories from my GI relatives before they passed away. Brown shirts and others more clandestine were known to exist. They would make comments like "Hitler knows how to get things done, we need a leader like that."
Today they listen to Rush Limbaugh and tell us that Vladimir Putin knows how to get things done...
There was good cause for Fritz Capra's Why We Fight , explaining what the Axis powers were up to based upon their behavior in their own countries even before they imposed their infernal regimes elsewhere.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
Why are you guys responding to our resident facist? You never gave Praetor so much attention, and he was more coherent than this guy.
This thread opened with a question. I gave an answer and asked one of my own. Then Mr. Hilter comes in here and sucks the oxygen out of the room.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(08-13-2016, 07:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Why are you guys responding to our resident facist? You never gave Praetor so much attention, and he was more coherent than this guy.
This thread opened with a question. I gave an answer and asked one of my own. Then Mr. Hilter comes in here and sucks the oxygen out of the room.
Nitpick. Isn't the proper title Herr Hitler?
Good question.
Personally, I'm finding that Trump is dominating the current political landscape, and there seems to be no reasonable people left who are standing by him.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
(08-13-2016, 08:51 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (08-13-2016, 07:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Why are you guys responding to our resident facist? You never gave Praetor so much attention, and he was more coherent than this guy.
This thread opened with a question. I gave an answer and asked one of my own. Then Mr. Hilter comes in here and sucks the oxygen out of the room.
Nitpick. Isn't the proper title Herr Hitler?
Good question.
Personally, I'm finding that Trump is dominating the current political landscape, and there seems to be no reasonable people left who are standing by him.
No. Obviously you did not click on the link 
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(08-13-2016, 07:18 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Why are you guys responding to our resident facist? You never gave Praetor so much attention, and he was more coherent than this guy.
This thread opened with a question. I gave an answer and asked one of my own. Then Mr. Hilter comes in here and sucks the oxygen out of the room.
Mr. Hilter doesn't like babies any more than Mr. Drumpf.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
08-13-2016, 06:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2016, 06:10 PM by Eric the Green.)
(08-08-2016, 03:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't approve of the Russian polity as Putin runs it. But I don't see Russia as a threat to America. Also what Russia says on foreign policy makes more sense to me than what America says. That was NOT the case during the Cold War. I can see how what Putin says applies to the world as I see it. I do not see how what America says is supposed to make sense.
What makes sense is for the international community, not America alone, to not allow bigger nations to eat up smaller ones by unjustified conquest. People should vote and decide what their national status is, not fight and die over this.
Quote:Why was America so eager to see Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad replaced by an Islamic theocracy? I don't know.
Saddam; you may have a point. The people of Libya rose up against Qaddafi, and NATO acted to prevent a bloodbath. Without that, we would have had Syria. The people of Syria rose up against Assad, and NATO did not act. Result: obliteration of the country and its people by the dictator and its Russian and Iranian allies. The IS moves in to take advantage. Support for the rebels would have led to negotiations with Assad's allies to replace him with a new more-democratic state. That could still happen, because it's the only viable solution.
Quote:Why do we want an aging (and possibly softening) theocracy in Iran replaced by an extremist Islamist group, as most Republicans seem to want. I don't know that either.
I guess you are saying Republicans want war with Iran, which would result in a IS takeover. Possibly; and Republicans want that because they believe in war and imperialism. On the other hand, the Islamic State is going to be reduced soon to scattered terrorist cells. With the Iran agreement in place if Hillary wins, war will be averted for at least a decade. The IS will be long gone by then.
Quote: I could be cynical and think that we want to spread fundamentalist Islam so as to recreate a far-away enemy so as to justify ignoring domestic issues, but I don't think this is really right.
No, it's not; but Trump wants to entertain us by making America great again and winning so much that we get bored with winning.
Quote: I am simply at a loss. I think I used to understand our foreign policy during the Cold War. Now it seems bonkers.
I don't think HRC's policy is bonkers. We have the choice between bonkers or not.
Better than Cynic Hero's rantings, for sure. However, I don't think this was one of your more illuminating posts. And, strangely enough, Cynic Hero voices some ideas that have more resonance outside this forum than I would have thought, according to some polls and such.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
In response to Eric. "The people" do not rise up against their leaders. It is always some subset of the people that begins an insurgency.
My view is an insurgency lacks legitimacy if they have no reasonable chance of success (e.g. Syria, Libya). It is the height of irresponsibility to rise up in a hopeless cause as all it does is get a lot of your own people killed. The US acts as an enabler of this and so has been partly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In my opinion, the US policy of trying to spread democracy in this way is evil.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
08-14-2016, 04:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2016, 04:37 PM by Eric the Green.)
(08-14-2016, 03:50 PM)Mikebert Wrote: In response to Eric. "The people" do not rise up against their leaders. It is always some subset of the people that begins an insurgency.
My view is an insurgency lacks legitimacy if they have no reasonable chance of success (e.g. Syria, Libya). It is the height of irresponsibility to rise up in a hopeless cause as all it does is get a lot of your own people killed. The US acts as an enabler of this and so has been partly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In my opinion, the US policy of trying to spread democracy in this way is evil.
I can't go with the idea that the USA enabled these risings, or tried to spread democracy in Syria. The US did nothing there for 2 years, and very little since. And the uprisings in Libya and Syria involved millions of people; in Syria they marched in the streets for several months peacefully. The civil war began when Assad started shooting them. There's no reasonable dispute with those facts. To dispute these facts is to spit in the face of those people whose only crime is that they want to be free.
However, was it wise for the millions of Syrians to rise up against their dictator? Probably not, in hindsight. I thought they were marching into troubled waters when they started; knowing the past history of the House of Assad. But, they did think NATO might help them, as they helped in Libya. And the other Arab Spring risings seemed to be working at that time. AND they were facing ruin because of the drought and the lack of action on it by the Assad regime. It's too bad that the Syrian people live under a monster. I don't blame them at all for rising up against the insect that was tyrannizing them. I was rooting for them, and still do. They deserve a chance for a decent and free life.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(08-09-2016, 12:52 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (08-08-2016, 03:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't approve of the Russian polity as Putin runs it. But I don't see Russia as a threat to America. Also what Russia says on foreign policy makes more sense to me than what America says. That was NOT the case during the Cold War. I can see how what Putin says applies to the world as I see it. I do not see how what America says is supposed to make sense.
Why was America so eager so see Saddam, Quadhafi and Assad replaced by an Islamic theocracy? I don't know.
Why do we want an aging (and possibly softening) theocracy in Iran replaced by an extremist Islamist group, as most Republicans seem to want. I don't know that either.
I could be cynical and think that we want to spread fundamentalist Islam so as to recreate a far-away enemy so as to justify ignoring domestic issues, but I don't think this is really right.
I am simply at a loss. I think I used to understand our foreign policy during the Cold War. Now it seems bonkers.
American foreign policy under Barack Obama has come to resemble what Ronald Reagan got away with, and Hillary Clinton seems to be adopting much the same. So perhaps it is American foreign policy that is aging. To be sure, Marxism-Leninism is dead everywhere but North Korea (China and Vietnam are practically capitalist, but even Marxism-Leninism as remains in North Korea remains as despised under Barack Obama as the Soviet Union in the Brezhnev era. Then there is Daesh, which seems to be fascist Jihad.
Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi were murderous tyrants, and Bashir Assad is one too. Murderous tyrants in command of second-rate or lesser powers have a tendency to implode over time.
Marxism-Leninism has been dead in China since 1976, it was encased in glass along with Mao's mummified corpse. It never really existed in the DPRK as Kim Il-Sung was mostly a nationalist who only became a Marxist after the fact and then implemented a new ideology of his own anyway (Juche). Vietnam, Laos and Cuba have ruling communist parties but none were ML and aren't now. Rather those three countries have ruling communist parties as an artifact of the cold war. IE to be against the US you must be as a consequence a communist. (Khrushevite revisionism 101).
Say what you like about Qaddafi and Hussein but the fact is that both kept the lid on the pressure cooker that are their respective countries, and without a strong man you end up with Islamist terrorism and tribal warfare. As for them imploding...reality paints a different picture. Both were removed through US intervention. In both cases the result was the same, Islamist Terrorism and Tribal warfare.
Is it possible for second rate dictators of third rate countries to implode of their own accord? Absolutely, and in cases where that happens the result is inevitably the replacement of one second rate dictator with a different second rate dictator. Some civilizations simply are not compatible with Western Democracy--probably because that is a product of Western Civilization.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(08-14-2016, 03:50 PM)Mikebert Wrote: In response to Eric. "The people" do not rise up against their leaders. It is always some subset of the people that begins an insurgency.
My view is an insurgency lacks legitimacy if they have no reasonable chance of success (e.g. Syria, Libya). It is the height of irresponsibility to rise up in a hopeless cause as all it does is get a lot of your own people killed. The US acts as an enabler of this and so has been partly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. In my opinion, the US policy of trying to spread democracy in this way is evil.
I by and large agree. However, I would point out that a great deal of the reasoning behind it these days is because the military industrial complex requires wars of choice to justify its continued existence. Economics is the mother of politics.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(08-14-2016, 10:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Is it possible for second rate dictators of third rate countries to implode of their own accord? Absolutely, and in cases where that happens the result is inevitably the replacement of one second rate dictator with a different second rate dictator. Some civilizations simply are not compatible with Western Democracy--probably because that is a product of Western Civilization.
I'd spin it another way. Authoritarian cultures have trouble competing with industrialized democracies. There is a slow turnover with some movement away from authoritarianism. Within a given culture and life time, the slow turnover looks an awful lot like no progress at all.
Still, how long an interval was it from Great Britain's parliament starting to struggle with their king to the end of the US Civil War? It takes a long time for a culture to throw off authoritarian rule, and even the US and UK should be considered works in progress. [Darth Vader Breathing] You do not understand the power of the Dark Side of values lock. [/Darth Vader Breathing] You're not going to see poof magic stampede of rainbow unicorns instant change to perfection. It is a long slow tedious process.
Have you ever studied history? Take notes on how long it takes a culture to transition from a classic Agricultural Age pattern to something vaguely modern and acceptable. Oh. Hmm. Has anyone ever transitioned to something acceptable? Nobody is really there yet?
Well, that does imply that it takes some time. 
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(08-14-2016, 10:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: (08-09-2016, 12:52 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: (08-08-2016, 03:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I don't approve of the Russian polity as Putin runs it. But I don't see Russia as a threat to America. Also what Russia says on foreign policy makes more sense to me than what America says. That was NOT the case during the Cold War. I can see how what Putin says applies to the world as I see it. I do not see how what America says is supposed to make sense.
Why was America so eager so see Saddam, Quadhafi and Assad replaced by an Islamic theocracy? I don't know.
Why do we want an aging (and possibly softening) theocracy in Iran replaced by an extremist Islamist group, as most Republicans seem to want. I don't know that either.
I could be cynical and think that we want to spread fundamentalist Islam so as to recreate a far-away enemy so as to justify ignoring domestic issues, but I don't think this is really right.
I am simply at a loss. I think I used to understand our foreign policy during the Cold War. Now it seems bonkers.
American foreign policy under Barack Obama has come to resemble what Ronald Reagan got away with, and Hillary Clinton seems to be adopting much the same. So perhaps it is American foreign policy that is aging. To be sure, Marxism-Leninism is dead everywhere but North Korea (China and Vietnam are practically capitalist, but even Marxism-Leninism as remains in North Korea remains as despised under Barack Obama as the Soviet Union in the Brezhnev era. Then there is Daesh, which seems to be fascist Jihad.
Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi were murderous tyrants, and Bashir Assad is one too. Murderous tyrants in command of second-rate or lesser powers have a tendency to implode over time.
Marxism-Leninism has been dead in China since 1976, it was encased in glass along with Mao's mummified corpse. It never really existed in the DPRK as Kim Il-Sung was mostly a nationalist who only became a Marxist after the fact and then implemented a new ideology of his own anyway (Juche). Vietnam, Laos and Cuba have ruling communist parties but none were ML and aren't now. Rather those three countries have ruling communist parties as an artifact of the cold war. IE to be against the US you must be as a consequence a communist. (Khrushevite revisionism 101).
Wrong about North Korea. Merge three or the worst tendencies in inhuman history (absolute monarchy, Marxism-Leninism, and WWII-style Japanese imperialism even if the latter is Koreanized), and one has today's North Korea... the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" which is completely undemocratic, ill serves the people of northern Korea, and is no republic. The only truth in its description is that it is Korean, which is about like saying that the KKK is American.
Quote:Say what you like about Qaddafi and Hussein but the fact is that both kept the lid on the pressure cooker that are their respective countries, and without a strong man you end up with Islamist terrorism and tribal warfare. As for them imploding...reality paints a different picture. Both were removed through US intervention. In both cases the result was the same, Islamist Terrorism and Tribal warfare.
Horrible analogy. One must open the vents of a pressure cooker lest one have a bomb. I know of at least two cases of murder in which a perpetrator heated a pressure cooker while leaving the valve shut. I see more of an analogy between Qaddafi and Ceausescu; both had the chance to open the valves a little so that they could get out with their skins intact (like Honecker, Jaruzelski, Husak, and Zhivkov) and failed to take it. Such was a great mistake. Saddam Hussein? It was only a matter of time for him or one of his two worthless sons.
Quote:Is it possible for second rate dictators of third rate countries to implode of their own accord? Absolutely, and in cases where that happens the result is inevitably the replacement of one second rate dictator with a different second rate dictator. Some civilizations simply are not compatible with Western Democracy--probably because that is a product of Western Civilization.
India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Tunisia would seem to contradict you.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(08-15-2016, 06:11 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (08-14-2016, 10:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Is it possible for second rate dictators of third rate countries to implode of their own accord? Absolutely, and in cases where that happens the result is inevitably the replacement of one second rate dictator with a different second rate dictator. Some civilizations simply are not compatible with Western Democracy--probably because that is a product of Western Civilization.
India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Tunisia would seem to contradict you.
Was General Franco a first rate dictator? While he didn't let go of power himself, he encouraged and prepared for his successor to move Spain into a democratic government. That might make another counter example. Thing is, Kinser could just go the 'No True Scotsman' route and declare any dictator that was replaced by a democracy must have been a first rate dictator.
There is movement away from autocratic government. It's just slooooow.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(08-15-2016, 10:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (08-15-2016, 06:11 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: (08-14-2016, 10:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Is it possible for second rate dictators of third rate countries to implode of their own accord? Absolutely, and in cases where that happens the result is inevitably the replacement of one second rate dictator with a different second rate dictator. Some civilizations simply are not compatible with Western Democracy--probably because that is a product of Western Civilization.
India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Tunisia would seem to contradict you.
Was General Franco a first rate dictator? While he didn't let go of power himself, he encouraged and prepared for his successor to move Spain into a democratic government. That might make another counter example. Thing is, Kinser could just go the 'No True Scotsman' route and declare any dictator that was replaced by a democracy must have been a first rate dictator.
There is movement away from autocratic government. It's just slooooow.
The point was to say that western culture is not essential to democracy. Who knows? Democracy might have its biggest possible gain some year (China, of course). If the people are well educated and not prone to political violence, then democracy could survive there. So replace the images of Mao with those of Sun Yat Sen and have competitive elections. Democracy had its starts and fails in the West -- just think of Germany in 1918 and 1933 as the extreme expression of both.
Franco knew that time was running out on his style of autocratic government. Choosing a King to be crowned in the knowledge that that king had no stake in preserving the Franco regime is one way to have a transition. Maybe Franco knew what harm his sort of despotism could do to a country. Maybe the people with angry memories would not be contesting each other and demanding bloody reprisals against people recently connected to him. Franco had no meaningful Party apparatus in place.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(08-15-2016, 08:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (08-14-2016, 10:20 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Is it possible for second rate dictators of third rate countries to implode of their own accord? Absolutely, and in cases where that happens the result is inevitably the replacement of one second rate dictator with a different second rate dictator. Some civilizations simply are not compatible with Western Democracy--probably because that is a product of Western Civilization.
I'd spin it another way. Authoritarian cultures have trouble competing with industrialized democracies. There is a slow turnover with some movement away from authoritarianism. Within a given culture and life time, the slow turnover looks an awful lot like no progress at all.
Still, how long an interval was it from Great Britain's parliament starting to struggle with their king to the end of the US Civil War? It takes a long time for a culture to throw off authoritarian rule, and even the US and UK should be considered works in progress. [Darth Vader Breathing] You do not understand the power of the Dark Side of values lock. [/Darth Vader Breathing] You're not going to see poof magic stampede of rainbow unicorns instant change to perfection. It is a long slow tedious process.
Have you ever studied history? Take notes on how long it takes a culture to transition from a classic Agricultural Age pattern to something vaguely modern and acceptable. Oh. Hmm. Has anyone ever transitioned to something acceptable? Nobody is really there yet?
Well, that does imply that it takes some time.
I would argue that if you study history you come to the conclusion that certain civilizations come to certain forms of government eventually. The West and the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic West in particular has always had far more democratic flavor than any other countries and the Latinate West less than the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic West but more so than others.
I'll respond to PBR in a separate post mostly because he's being his usual ignorant self, but suffice it to say, while it may indeed be possible that non-western cultures can develop democracies, they will only do so on their own and with much hardship and in some cases only as a result of imposition by an outside force (Japan for example) or because the governmental system of a former occupying power is the least offensive to everyone (India for example).
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(08-15-2016, 06:11 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Wrong about North Korea.
Actually I'm not. I strongly recommend that you study both Marxism-Leninism and Juche and come back to me with how Marxist-Leninist Juche is. I'm not going to argue from your ignorance of the subject.
Quote:Horrible analogy. One must open the vents of a pressure cooker lest one have a bomb
Are you assuming that Hussein and Qadaffi didn't have said vents? They did. In fact their primary vent was blame all the problems the country in question had on the West, which it should be noted the West happily obliged in assisting with through sanctions and other meddling.
Quote:I know of at least two cases of murder in which a perpetrator heated a pressure cooker while leaving the valve shut. I see more of an analogy between Qaddafi and Ceausescu; both had the chance to open the valves a little so that they could get out with their skins intact (like Honecker, Jaruzelski, Husak, and Zhivkov) and failed to take it. Such was a great mistake. Saddam Hussein? It was only a matter of time for him or one of his two worthless sons.
Actually Qaddafi's government was relatively stable until the CIA started stirring up trouble. Ceausescu, Honecker and ect were doomed as soon as Gorbachev started Glasnost and Perestroika.
Quote:India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Tunisia would seem to contradict you.
Japan and South Korea have had their political systems imposed on them by the West. Namely the US.
India accepted the political system of their former colonial master (the UK) because all other options were worse (and unacceptable). The natural course of events for a society which has over 1 billion people, over 100 languages, and as many religions. India is a polyglot state, it either develops a democracy or it shatters.
Taiwan may be a democracy but it is not a western democracy. Even so it is a democracy only in as much as not being a democracy means that the US would withhold military and economic aid. In short having democratic forms is preferable to being ruled by Beijing (which it should be as "Taiwan" is really a province of China anyway).
Tunisia remains to be seen as to whether it will develop a stable democracy. I'm not holding my breath, but even should it, provided that said democracy is not imposed from without, it certainly will not be a western democracy, but rather an Arab one.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
[quote pid='7753' dateline='1472099330']
Kinser79 Wrote: (08-15-2016, 06:11 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Wrong about North Korea.
Actually I'm not. I strongly recommend that you study both Marxism-Leninism and Juche and come back to me with how Marxist-Leninist Juche is. I'm not going to argue from your ignorance of the subject.
Absolute monarchy in all but name and Marxism-Leninism are both found wanting. Juche is a nationalistic autarky as an attempt to patch the problems of a tyrannical regime.
Quote:Quote:Horrible analogy. One must open the vents of a pressure cooker lest one have a bomb
Are you assuming that Hussein and Qadaffi didn't have said vents? They did. In fact their primary vent was blame all the problems the country in question had on the West, which it should be noted the West happily obliged in assisting with through sanctions and other meddling.
Saddam Hussein did well enough for the Iraqi economy until he invaded Kuwait and turned the rest of the world against him, even doing fairly well with the oil revenues that he did not take a cut from. (Of course he was also a fascistic butcher, but that is another story). Qaddafi is the sort of leader one gets when all opposition of any kind is abolished. Qaddafi was coked up so often that he got crazy.
Quote:Quote:I know of at least two cases of murder in which a perpetrator heated a pressure cooker while leaving the valve shut. I see more of an analogy between Qaddafi and Ceausescu; both had the chance to open the valves a little so that they could get out with their skins intact (like Honecker, Jaruzelski, Husak, and Zhivkov) and failed to take it. Such was a great mistake. Saddam Hussein? It was only a matter of time for him or one of his two worthless sons.
Actually Qaddafi's government was relatively stable until the CIA started stirring up trouble. Ceausescu, Honecker and ect were doomed as soon as Gorbachev started Glasnost and Perestroika.
Nostalgia for Qaddafi, Honecker, and Ceausescu? Nice try. Maybe should "Daddy" become President we will start having nostalgia sessions for Papadopoulos, Franco, and Pinochet. All in all, I wish that Mikhail Gorbachev had succeeded in transforming the Soviet Union into a full democracy.
Quote:Quote:India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Tunisia would seem to contradict you.
Japan and South Korea have had their political systems imposed on them by the West. Namely the US.
India accepted the political system of their former colonial master (the UK) because all other options were worse (and unacceptable). The natural course of events for a society which has over 1 billion people, over 100 languages, and as many religions. India is a polyglot state, it either develops a democracy or it shatters.
Taiwan may be a democracy but it is not a western democracy. Even so it is a democracy only in as much as not being a democracy means that the US would withhold military and economic aid. In short having democratic forms is preferable to being ruled by Beijing (which it should be as "Taiwan" is really a province of China anyway).
Tunisia remains to be seen as to whether it will develop a stable democracy. I'm not holding my breath, but even should it, provided that said democracy is not imposed from without, it certainly will not be a western democracy, but rather an Arab one.
[/quote]
...and Italy, the western zones of Germany, and to some extent France had political systems imposed from elsewhere.
Fascism is nearly pure pathology, whatever the culture. One cannot count on the USA preserving a pathological order where it prevails after defeating a thug regime. I would expect Japan to do much the same should it end up at war with North Korea. North Korea has a political order of almost pure pathology.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 604
Threads: 68
Joined: May 2016
Muslims have irredentist claims on both Russia (Chechnya, Dagestan etc.) and China (Xinjiang, Da-Qaidam etc.).
Therefore, unless Boomers bungle badly, both Moscow and Beijing are natural allies of our "crusade" - or at the absolute least can be persuaded to remain neutral, which would be more than enough for "us" to win.
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - Justice David Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(08-26-2016, 07:53 AM)Anthony Wrote: Therefore, unless Boomers bungle badly, both Moscow and Beijing are natural allies of our "crusade" - or at the absolute least can be persuaded to remain neutral, which would be more than enough for "us" to win.
Given their past history I think we can count on them fucking up very badly.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken
If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. -- Ludwig von Mises
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
10-22-2016, 10:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2016, 05:54 PM by pbrower2a.)
(08-26-2016, 06:40 PM)Galen Wrote: (08-26-2016, 07:53 AM)Anthony Wrote: Therefore, unless Boomers bungle badly, both Moscow and Beijing are natural allies of our "crusade" - or at the absolute least can be persuaded to remain neutral, which would be more than enough for "us" to win.
Given their past history I think we can count on them fucking up very badly.
Alignment with partners who fcuk up so badly is bad foreign policy. That's why Vietnam was such a disaster for America.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
|
