Teacher's pet

[Cyrus]

Zeno is correct. And I made exactly the same point :

"No one group or association of peoples, however organized, has any "high moral ground" to stand on."

Notice that your argument was something about democracies treating non-democracies better. Never happen. I thought the old adage about art and culture making people more civilised stopped holding water ever since Auschwitz and its opera-refined officers.

So, to recapitulate : The war was conducted in order, ostensibly, to disarm Iraq from its WMDs. Since no WMDs are found ("yet"), the spin shifts to the collateral bebefit of turning a dictatoship into a democracy. Because, the spin goes, democracies treat other people better than dictatorships. Which, however, is false.

"Gotta be precise" indeed.

[Cyrus]

"The answer to your objections is simple : just convert all those totalitarian regimes into democracies."

George Bush I expect to be simplistic. But I have higher expectations from you.

[MMMMMM]

So the fact that democracies treat their own people better than dictatorships do is unimportant or irrelevant? (hint: it's actually not irrelevant to the argument, even to the original argument).

Even if it could be be shown that democracies don't treat others better than do totalitarian regimes, could it possibly be that if the dictatorships had instead been the ones with more power, that they would have treated others even worse than did the democracies who held the greater international powers? In other words, those with the most power do sometimes abuse it--but still, some would do better or worse by others if they held the same power.

If totalitarian governments had had more power than democracies, instead of the other way around, they wouldn't have been any worse to others? Somehow I doubt that based on their treatment of their own.

Democracies and people are far from perfect and often do act callously and in their own best interests. However I would bet that the whole world has been damn fortunate in that the totalitarian regimes were never the ones with the greatest powers, or else we could put the flip side of this little theory to the test.

Hypothetical scenario: We didn't take over Japan after winning the war, but you can bet that had Japan won the war, they would have taken us over.

Another hypothetical scenario: After the German defeat in WWII, we didn't further rape the country of Germany but instead rebuilt it. Care to speculate as to what would have happened had the Axis Powers defeated the Allies in WWII? And if Germany had somehow also defeated Russia?

"No one holds the moral high ground" is a cute compact saying. It's sometimes true and at other times false.

[MMMMMM]

It can probably be done over time, in sequential fashion.

It's both simple and complex at once, sort of like a good puzzle.

97 years is a fairly long time.

[Zeno]

I'm glad I added something useful to a debate, although my comment just planes all peoples down to time-honored barbaric habits. On a more serious note, perhaps there is a division in what is strictly logical and what is practical in application with regards to humanity, its institutions, and interactions. I now withdraw myself from this intractable debate.

I will take the "wow" as a compliment. I'm practicing my apocalyptical writing. The Gospel of Zeno will be out this fall. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"I will take the "wow" as a compliment."

As it was meant.

[Cyrus]

"No one holds the moral high ground" is a cute compact saying. It's sometimes true and at other times false.

Sorry. This is a statement that is either True or False. Read it again.

"So the fact that democracies treat their own people better than dictatorships do is unimportant or irrelevant?"

Everything you throw into the discussion can be relevant! The argument in the beginning was that Iraq was in cahoots with al-Qaeda. When that was understood to be a little hard to prove, WMDs and compliance to SC Resolutions were invoked. Not that the invasion is over, the Bush acolytes ignore that glaring lack of evidence of WMDs and start about Iraq being a "threat to the Middle East area" in general -- and we all know that dictatorships are more evil in dealing with other countries than democracies, etc etc.

Then, that argment too is easily debunked. So we are forced back to the old, tried and true imperialist slogan of liberating countries for their own good!

..Sure it's relevant! White Man's Burden? It never ceased to be.

"Care to speculate as to what would have happened had the Axis Powers defeated the Allies in WWII?"

Hear, hear. As Basil Fawlty used to shout "WHO WON THE DAMN WAR ANYWAY??"

P.S. Draw a list of the "totalitarian regimes" that the world policeman intends to club over the head next. Lots of tourists are anxious about where to go abroad this summer. And what places to avoid. Thank you.

[Cyrus]

Simplistic is when you assume that dictatorships can be "turned to democracies" as easily as you proclaim. You wrote we "just" have to turn dictatoships into democracies -- the tell is in the "just"!

Grandiose is when you assume for the U.S. a global role that it's glaringly uncapable of undertaking. Technically, as well as politically. Catching up on Paul Kennedy's book about the historical overstretching of empires would be helpful in this juncture, ..but I forgot you avoid reading books.

Naive is when you assume, however flippantly, that the world will be similar in the next "97 years" to what we see around us today. A little humility would be essential to put thoughts about the long term in order, ...but humility is scarce this time of the season.

[MMMMMM]

You're slipping, Cyrus;-)

"The sky is cloudy"-- Is that statement True or False, or is it some days true and some days false?

Now what about this statement: "No one holds the moral high ground?" Is that statement always true, or is it true only in some cases? And are you going to propose that the Allies did not hold the moral high ground over the Axis powers?

I suggest that, for the next 20-30 years, you avoid vacationing where totalitarian regimes hold sway, especially when hearing serious rumblings about them coming from Washington and London. Just listen and you'll know.

Down with tyranny: Up with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Down with dictators: Up with governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[MMMMMM]

Can't one use "just" without implying ease of implementation?

If dictatorships can be converted into democracies, then the task becomes much simpler and there is no need for empire. Why assume an empire, or a need for one? "Just" a sequential process, which of course will not be easy. However it might be workable.

Referencing 97 years is my way of saying that there is quite a bit of time for this process to unfold--I'm not really speculating on how long it might take. However I do suspect it's probably inevitable due both to internal pressures within totalitarian regimes AND the potential for military assistance by the leaders of the West. One without the other would fail most likely, but I see the presence of both, and if this trend continues it may accelerate. For instance, maybe many Cubans would beg to be liberated from their ruling fiend, if they thought assistance would arrive before Castro could consign them to prison or the firing squad for daring to speak out.

Rejoice, Cyrus--dictatorships may soon be vanishing to be replaced by more humane and enlightened forms of government. Hopefully, we can get there from here.