Thread: Who will you vote for?

From Universal Mind
Mexican-American War involved U.S. tyrrany when we were still in our Wild West phase and had not developed yet into the civilized country we are today. The same can be said of the Civil War. The South/Confederacy, where I live and am not afraid to live now but would have been back then, was a force of evil in the mid-1800's.

The U.S. acted like a tyranny in the Mexican-American war, yet it was a democracy. The U.S. was a democracy of white men who were simultaneously tyrants to blacks both before and after the Civil War. You make the assertion that it was an 'uncivilized' democracy. If so, one can certainly see that a democratic government is not a sufficient guarantee against wars of aggression or tyrannical policies. Instead, a country must be both democratic and civilized. What makes a country and its people civilized? Is it the threat of retaliation, or something more intangible?

From Universal Mind
Are you the least bit worried that the United States will take over Canada for their oil, or that England will invade France to own their resources, or that Japan will declare war on Australia? Nothing like that will ever happen. They are all democracies that have had time to advance substantially. Such countries do not go to war with governments that are not tyrranical.

If tyrannical is defined as acting in a manner that subjects other countries to coercion by threat of force, then of course it is impossible for any democracy to go to war with governments that are not tyrannical, since any attacking democratic government would be defined as tyrannical, just as the U.S. was in the Mexican-American war. Tyranny is tyranny, aggression is aggression, and they should not be equated.

In addition, wars fought for economic gain must always follow a good cost-benefit analysis. Wars are prohibitively expensive, so unless the reward is great, a war fought for economic gain is highly unlikely. Perhaps one can say that democracies do not war against each other because they tend to be evenly matched militarily or else the benefits of war are too small to warrant conflict(Is this what it means to be a 'civilized' nation?). If there were more democracies in a greater variety of conditions for greater periods of time, it would be much easier to observe the effect democracy has upon the chance of aggression, and to filter out the effect of military equality and economic factors. Then again, perhaps the preeminence of such factors refutes the idea that democratic governments have any significant inhibitory effect.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The U.S. acted like a tyranny in the Mexican-American war, yet it was a democracy. The U.S. was a democracy of white men who were simultaneously tyrants to blacks both before and after the Civil War. You make the assertion that it was an 'uncivilized' democracy. If so, one can certainly see that a democratic government is not a sufficient guarantee against wars of aggression or tyrannical policies. Instead, a country must be both democratic and civilized. What makes a country and its people civilized? Is it the threat of retaliation, or something more intangible?

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? It takes a while for a democracy to advance. But since we are now past the industrial revolution and have the economic advantages and civilzation that come with that, it will not take Iraq and Afghanistan as long as we took. Please make sure you read what I wrote if you want to talk about this.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If tyrannical is defined as acting in a manner that subjects other countries to coercion by threat of force, then of course it is impossible for any democracy to go to war with governments that are not tyrannical, since any attacking democratic government would be defined as tyrannical, just as the U.S. was in the Mexican-American war. Tyranny is tyranny, aggression is aggression, and they should not be equated.

Tyranny is not defined that way. Coercing Germany in WWII was not tyrannical. It was anti-tyrannical. Tyranny is doing what you described, except it is done unjustifiably and oppressively.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

In addition, wars fought for economic gain must always follow a good cost-benefit analysis. Wars are prohibitively expensive, so unless the reward is great, a war fought for economic gain his highly unlikely. Perhaps one can say that democracies do not war against each other because they tend to be evenly matched militarily or else the benefits of war are too small to warrant conflict(Is this what it means to be a 'civilized' nation?). If there were more democracies in a greater variety of conditions for greater periods of time, it would be much easier to observe the effect democracy has upon the chance of aggression, and to filter out the effect of military equality and economic factors. Then again, perhaps the preeminence of such factors refutes the idea that democratic governments have any significant inhibitory effect.

Mainly, democracies tend to produce relatively civil populations, which vote in relatively civil governments. That keeps the tendency to attack countries for unjustifiable reasons to a minimum. Dicatorships and other totalitarian regimes do not have such restraint. They have the opposite. They have governments that can do as they damn well please without a citizenry that will vote them out of office for it, and at the same time are run by people who are obsessed with power through oppression. That makes them far more dangerous than democracies.

From Universal Mind
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? It takes a while for a democracy to advance. But since we are now past the industrial revolution and have the economic advantages and civilzation that come with that, it will not take Iraq and Afghanistan as long as we took. Please make sure you read what I wrote if you want to talk about this.

I apologize for my ignorance. I see your point. If I am right in assessing your view, a fledgling democracy, such as the U.S. was in the 1800's, cannot become civilized until it reaches a certain level of economic prosperity that agrarian economies can't reach, or would take a very long time to reach. In addition, a country is unlikely to become economically prosperous unless it is already a democracy. Technology quickens the pace of economic development, so a new democracy could become quite civilized very quickly today.

That is quite an assertion. I had assumed that the U.S. of the 1800's was an established democracy, since it was as well-off as many other(and older) nations at the time, had a steadily growing economy,huge land assets, which were being explored with gusto, and enough power to war with its neighbor. I assumed that the U.S. was relatively prosperous, but obviously it was not enough to be civilized. To be civilized the people in a democracy must enjoy a certain level of luxury, you suppose. How does prosperity make people in a democracy reluctant to war against other democracies? This is akin to my earlier question: what makes a country and its people civilized?

From Universal Mind
Mainly, democracies tend to produce relatively civil populations, which vote in relatively civil governments. That keeps the tendency to attack countries for unjustifiable reasons to a minimum. Dicatorships and other totalitarian regimes do not have such restraint. They have the opposite. They have governments that can do as they damn well please without a citizenry that will vote them out of office for it, and at the same time are run by people who are obsessed with power through oppression. That makes them far more dangerous than democracies.

The idea that democracies tend toward civility is, as I have said, not yet supportable by evidence. Is it wise, however, to assume that dictators, who greatly reduce the prosperity of their country, as you asserted, are invulnerable to domestic insurrection or military coup? It is in the best interests of a dictator to preserve power at any cost. To expand that power is secondary to that interest, is it not? Is the decision to go to war made lightly by dictators?

More to the point, how can anyone claim that tyrannical governments are more dangerous than democracies(in terms of wars, not civil/political rights) when it is not known how dangerous democracies are?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I apologize for my ignorance. I see your point. If I am right in assessing your view, a fledgling democracy, such as the U.S. was in the 1800's, cannot become civilized until it reaches a certain level of economic prosperity that agrarian economies can't reach, or would take a very long time to reach. In addition, a country is unlikely to become economically prosperous unless it is already a democracy. Technology quickens the pace of economic development, so a new democracy could become quite civilized very quickly today.

Economic prosperity, plus intellectual advancement. The more primitive a culture is, the more violent it is toward innocent cultures.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

That is quite an assertion. I had assumed that the U.S. of the 1800's was an established democracy, since it was as well-off as many other(and older) nations at the time, had a steadily growing economy,huge land assets, which were being explored with gusto, and enough power to war with its neighbor. I assumed that the U.S. was relatively prosperous, but obviously it was not enough to be civilized. To be civilized the people in a democracy must enjoy a certain level of luxury, you suppose. How does prosperity make people in a democracy reluctant to war against other democracies? This is akin to my earlier question: what makes a country and its people civilized?

It's not just luxury. It's the economy that comes with the advancement as well as the education and view of the world. I am not sure of all of the details of that explanation, but the more technologically advanced a free civilization is, the less ignorant it is. The less ignorant and primitive it is, the more civil it is toward civil civilizations. I feel much safer in a civilized area than I would in a primitive one. I wouldn't even dare to step foot on a primitive civilization's turf. There is apparently a rise in the level of civility that comes with the economy, education, and worldly awareness that comes with civilizations that have been free for a while and have advanced substantially. Mass success and mass education produce mass worldly awareness and less tribal thinking and superstitious ignorance. The result is an increase in tolerance and compassion toward the innocent.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The idea that democracies tend toward civility is, as I have said, not yet supportable by evidence. Is it wise, however, to assume that dictators, who greatly reduce the prosperity of their country, as you asserted, are invulnerable to domestic insurrection or military coup? It is in the best interests of a dictator to preserve power at any cost. To expand that power is secondary to that interest, is it not? Is the decision to go to war made lightly by dictators?

It is supported by the evidence. Do a comparison of democracies and dictatorships and assess which side is more ujustifiably violent. Which side does more to help the world, and which side does more to act in violent selfishness? Dictators have historically been obsessed with expanding their power at almost any cost, and they have nobody to answer to for it within their own countries. The narcissism it takes to become a dictator keeps them from being significantly affected by worrying that their people will overthrow them. Such a worry never affected Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeni, Fidel Castro, or any other dictator I can think of. They see their people as pets, and they feel like they own them and can control them as much as they feel like. There is no sense of negotiation with their people anywhere in their minds. And yes, the decision to go to war is made very lightly by dictators. They are more afraid of other countries than they are of their people, and that keeps them in much better check than otherwise. I don't think any of them would dare invade the United States or one of our Western allies, for example, but they are not at all afraid of being removed from office by their people. The leaders of democracies are. If Bush invaded Canada for their oil, he would be taken out of office that day and thrown before the Senate to beg for mercy. We have power over our president, and that greatly affects how far he is willing to go with countries he believes he can defeat militarily. If the U.S. and our allies were weak militarily, we would have already been invaded by a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

More to the point, how can anyone claim that tyrannical governments are more dangerous than democracies(in terms of wars, not civil/political rights) when it is not known how dangerous democracies are?

Do you have even the slightest fear that the United States, Canada, Britain, Japan, Australia, or France is going to invade your country? If you don't live in a terrorist state or some other type of dictatorship that is threatening one of those countries majorly and very unjustifiably, you have nothing to worry about. But imagine the world without those countries, unless you live in one of them (In which case imagine your country has no military.), and question how much you would trust Syria, the Taliban, the Hussein regime, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, Lebanon, and Libbya not to invade your country for sinister reasons. Do you see the difference?

You assert that technological and educational advancement create civility, which arise from economic prosperity(though I disagree). Supposing this is true, one sees that civility is not synonymous with democracy, and can actually develop in non-democratic countries, such as China. Neither is democracy synonymous with civility, since the democratic form of government does not guarantee prosperity, and even when prosperity is possible, it could take decades for a democracy to become civilized.

Does this assertion also imply that non-prosperous democracies, with little technology or education, are prone to aggression? If so, can it not be said that the most significant effect of democracy is to encourage economic development, and not to form institutions that inhibit aggression?

From Universal Mind
Dictators have historically been obsessed with expanding their power at almost any cost

As I said, this is secondary to preserving the power they already have. Is that in doubt?

From Universal Mind
There is no sense of negotiation with their people anywhere in their minds. And yes, the decision to go to war is made very lightly by dictators. They are more afraid of other countries than they are of their people, and that keeps them in much better check than otherwise.

This is, I'm afraid, a generalization. Some dictators have a loyal following, others do not. Some are more afraid of other countries, some are more afraid of their own military. Caesar was killed by his own Senate, after all, and Saddam rose to power in a military coup. President Musharraf of Pakistan is too afraid of an insurrection to attack terrorists in his country.

From Universal Mind
Do you have even the slightest fear that the United States, Canada, Britain, Japan, Australia, or France is going to invade your country? If you don't live in a terrorist state or some other type of dictatorship that is threatening one of those countries majorly and very unjustifiably, you have nothing to worry about. But imagine the world without those countries, unless you live in one of them (In which case imagine your country has no military.), and question how much you would trust Syria, the Taliban, the Hussein regime, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, Lebanon, and Libbya not to invade your country for sinister reasons. Do you see the difference?

There is no economic benefit for any of the current crop of democracies to attack any other democracy. Does that mean a democracy would not be aggressive if there was? If I were the leader of a democracy with an abundance of vital resources, such as oil reserves, but no military, I would be afraid of military aggression by democracies and tyrannies alike. Ostensibly, democratic nations could move soldiers into the country to "protect" it from dictators(as the U.S. does), then peacefully enforce an economic servitude. Their reasons would be no more sinister than the dictators, only more subtle, cheaper, and more politically palatable to their people. I do see a difference.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

You assert that technological and educational advancement create civility, which arise from economic prosperity(though I disagree). Supposing this is true, one sees that civility is not synonymous with democracy, and can actually develop in non-democratic countries, such as China. Neither is democracy synonymous with civility, since the democratic form of government does not guarantee prosperity, and even when prosperity is possible, it could take decades for a democracy to become civilized.

I did not just assert it. I gave examples, and I gave you two lists to compare. Civility is not synonymous with democracy, but there is a very high correlation between the two. I also would not call China civil. Its population is being greatly helped by the increased capitalism, which illustrates my point. If their government were democratic along with that, I would not be worried about them at all. But yes, it can take decades for a country to become civilized to the point of relative major civility once it becomes a democracy. That is what we are facing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Does this assertion also imply that non-prosperous democracies, with little technology or education, are prone to aggression? If so, can it not be said that the most significant effect of democracy is to encourage economic development, and not to form institutions that inhibit aggression?

Again, it is not an assertion. If you think it is, then please make the comparison between the lists I gave.

What non-prosperous democracies are you talking about? The term "non-prosperous" is relative, so please tell me how the countries you have in mind compare to the dictatorships of recent years. Dictatorships are far more aggessive with selfishness than democracies. I would be surprised if there is even one exception to that. If there is one, it is not representative of the general reality.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

As I said, this is secondary to preserving the power they already have. Is that in doubt?

I agree. They want to preserve their power, but like I said, they do not fear that their people will take that away from them. That is why they have no problem with going after weaker countries if they think other nations will not remove them from power for doing it. Do you think Saddam Hussein was afraid his people would overthrow him if he took over Kuwait? He was afraid we would, and that's why he withdrew, but his own people did not make him blink.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

This is, I'm afraid, a generalization. Some dictators have a loyal following, others do not. Some are more afraid of other countries, some are more afraid of their own military. Caesar was killed by his own Senate, after all, and Saddam rose to power in a military coup. President Musharraf of Pakistan is too afraid of an insurrection to attack terrorists in his country.

There are exceptions, but dictators in general are not afraid of their own people, at least not afraid enough not to be unjustifiably aggressive against other nations.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

There is no economic benefit for any of the current crop of democracies to attack any other democracy. Does that mean a democracy would not be aggressive if there was? If I were the leader of a democracy with an abundance of vital resources, such as oil reserves, but no military, I would be afraid of military aggression by democracies and tyrannies alike. Ostensibly, democratic nations could move soldiers into the country to "protect" it from dictators(as the U.S. does), then peacefully enforce an economic servitude. Their reasons would be no more sinister than the dictators, only more subtle, cheaper, and more politically palatable to their people. I do see a difference.

The United States could take over Canada and own their oil. But I don't think any sane person is afraid that that is going to happen. Imagine the Hussein regime, Cuba, the Taliban, North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union, or Libbya being the world's only superpower. That country would own Canada's oil, and Canada would probably be called the name of that country. Lots of other countries would too.

Also, the United States is not going to take over Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates. There are plenty of countries, democracies and non-democracies, that we could take over in a day for the purpose of seizing their resources. So could Britain. It's not going to happen. But if those countries' governments for twelve years violate our ceasefire where we said we would not overthrow the government if they comply with the terms (mainly anti-terrorism in nature), fund terrorist organizations and provide incentives for suicide bombers, have a history of WMD terrorism, and are reported by six governments and the U.N. to have stockpiles of WMD's in light of their history, then we will invade them and put in a better government that will lead to a better civilization.

I'm voting for the libertarian party.

If what you said is true, Universal Mind, I would like to know your answers to these vexing questions:

Why do dictators display such cruelty towards their people when they have nothing to fear from them?

Why does the U.S. have tens of thousands of soldiers in Saudi Arabia?

1.because dictators have to be that way... or they'll be overthrown or ASSASSinated. Plus they have all the power so I assume it's just plain fun. That's why dictatorship sux balls.

2.cuz we plan on owning the fuck outta saudi arabia... I hope.

All sand niggers must die!!! (joke) sorta...


edit: im jut trying to make liberals mad btw.

BUsh cheney 2008. Wheeeeeeeew. Juuuuuuust kidding. I heard that the government found out that the american public was so happy with the past eight years that they decided to clone a new super duo of rebublican candidates in the spirit of our boys in the white house. Anyways. you guys are touchin on some interesting points. In the end terrorists are insane cowardly chauvanists. No matter what, they will keep killing while thinking that they are helping the worldwide problems. What needs to happen is somehow find all of the terrorists and destroy them. Wow now we're back at the start. We all can argue, but unless something is done nothing will ever happen. By the way I still cant F***ing have a LD.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Why do dictators display such cruelty towards their people when they have nothing to fear from them?

I said the fear is not enough to stop them. Dictators are ruthless as Hell to their people to make sure it stays that way. Hussein killed every person who was even suspected of being oppositional and even raped their wives in front of them and killed their children in front of them and all kinds of things like that. Hussein's sons would rape random women and then throw them off balconies. If the victims' families even made a peep about it, Uday and Qusay would mail body parts to the family members one by one. They did this stuff for the fun of wielding power, for the assertion of power, and to make sure their people never turned on them. Meanwhile, the regime took over Kuwait and violated a ceasefire with the United States for 12 years because they did not have enough fear that their citizens would overthrow them. They feared it enough to take preventative measures like what I described, but they believed their ruthlessness had things under control. It takes ruthless people to become dictators, ruthless people enjoy being ruthless, and ruthless dictators use their ruthlessness to control their citizens. Do you think the leaders of the United States, Canada, or Britain would be able to control their citizens with such methods without getting thrown out of office?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Why does the U.S. have tens of thousands of soldiers in Saudi Arabia?

They allow us to be there. We have not taken over the country, which is exactly what would be done by just about any dictatorship in the position of being the world's only superpower.

We have troops in Saudi Arabia for many reasons. They allowed us to position ourselves there for the 1991 war with the Hussein regime. We remained in case we were needed for other conflicts in the region, considering our unstable relationships with the Hussein regime, Iran, Syria, Libbya, Lebanon, and the terrorists who target and kill innocents in Israel. Now we are having a war on terror in the Middle East, and our strategic location in Saudi Arabia is helpful for military arrangement and readiness.

I suppose we have established that dictators are, in fact, terrified of active opposition from their people, and go to great lengths to make sure that anyone who has the power to destroy them(their generals) has ample incentive not to. Regardless of their political power, this depletes their economic power, as we have also agreed, and this makes them less able to wage wars than democracies, in general.

The jury is still out when it comes to which form of government is more prone to aggression.

From Universal Mind
They allow us to be there. We have not taken over the country, which is exactly what would be done by just about any dictatorship in the position of being the world's only superpower.

We have troops in Saudi Arabia for many reasons. They allowed us to position ourselves there for the 1991 war with the Hussein regime. We remained in case we were needed for other conflicts in the region, considering our unstable relationships with the Hussein regime, Iran, Syria, Libbya, Lebanon, and the terrorists who target and kill innocents in Israel. Now we are having a war on terror in the Middle East, and our strategic location in Saudi Arabia is helpful for military arrangement and readiness.

Isn't Saudi Arabia part of the problem?

Saudi Arabia, unbeknown to some, is a cruel, uncivil, absolute monarchy(a tyrannical government, in other words). Unsurprisingly, it is the birthplace of a number of terrorist groups(including Al Qaeda). Why haven't we taken over and installed a new, safer, democratic government?

Would you recommend military force against Saudi Arabia, or is there another way? Or, worst of all, must we accept the idea that it would be too dangerous to attempt the exercise at all?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I suppose we have established that dictators are, in fact, terrified of active opposition from their people, and go to great lengths to make sure that anyone who has the power to destroy them(their generals) has ample incentive not to. Regardless of their political power, this depletes their economic power, as we have also agreed, and this makes them less able to wage wars than democracies, in general.

I adamantly disagree. Dicators take evil measures to make sure their people do not oppose them, but that does not mean that they are "terrified" of their people. The fact that you lock your front door does not mean you are "terrified" of being burglarized. It is just a matter of doing what seems necessary. And as I said, I think dictators enjoy the nightmares they inflict on their people. It takes somebody with that kind of mentality to become a dictator. I don't see why those measures deplete them of their economic power. They deplete their countries' economic power by taking money away from the people and spending it on themselves in many cases, but it doesn't cost that much to gas a few thousand people at once.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The jury is still out when it comes to which form of government is more prone to aggression.

I disagree with that too. Compare the lists of countries I have mentioned. Imagine each one being the world's only superpower and ask yourself how afraid you would be of that country's potential for attacking your country for selfish reasons. You will see that dictatorships are much more dangerous and far less trustworthy than democracies. Imagine North Korea bordering extremely oil rich Canada to the south and being the world's only superpower. Imagine North Vietnam, Cuba, the Soviet Union, the Taliban, the Hussein regime, Syria, and Libbya, one at a time, being in that position. What would stop them from taking over Canada and making it all theirs? It sure as Hell would not be fear of their citizens overthrowing them that would stop them. Not one of them would be stopped by that. They keep their citizens way too scared for that. Now imagine the United States (presently in exactly that position), Britain, France, Australia, and Japan, one at a time, in that position. Does that idea scare you at all? There would be nothing to worry about. It would never happen. Any democratically elected leader of one of those advanced and relatively very civil countries would be recalled out of office the same day he pulled something like that. I also really believe their militaries would refuse such an order and would know they would not lose their jobs for refusing such an order.

It is not even close.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Isn't Saudi Arabia part of the problem?

Saudi Arabia, unbeknown to some, is a cruel, uncivil, absolute monarchy(a tyrannical government, in other words). Unsurprisingly, it is the birthplace of a number of terrorist groups(including Al Qaeda). Why haven't we taken over and installed a new, safer, democratic government?

Would you recommend military force against Saudi Arabia, or is there another way? Or, worst of all, must we accept the idea that it would be too dangerous to attempt the exercise at all?

We have definite disagreements with the way the Saudi government runs its country, but we do not see them as being so horrendous to the rest of the world that something as incredibly serious an overthrow would be necessary with them. There is a lot to consider when it comes to going to war, and we do not believe in overthrowing every government that has bad condidtions that set a stage for a terrorist mentality. The Saudi government is not the Hussein regime or the Taliban. Those governments existed in such a way that their overthrow was clearly justified. We only do that when the sum total of all of the factor levels is high enough. However, if our involvement in the Middle East really were all about evil acts for getting oil, Saudi Arabia would already be U.S. territory.

From Universal Mind
They deplete their countries' economic power by taking money away from the people and spending it on themselves in many cases, but it doesn't cost that much to gas a few thousand people at once.

My main idea was that, though they are unchecked politically, it is assumed tyrannical governments have substantially lower economic power than democracies. What the source of economic weakness actually comes from is not very relevant to the idea that dictators are militarily weaker than democracies, in general.

If dictators are militarily weaker than democracies, in general, doesn't this imply that wars between democracies would be substantially more costly? Regardless of democracy's inherent civility, isn't there an economic barrier that keeps democracies from attacking each other as well?

From Universal Mind
We have definite disagreements with the way the Saudi government runs its country, but we do not see them as being so horrendous to the rest of the world that something as incredibly serious an overthrow would be necessary with them. There is a lot to consider when it comes to going to war, and we do not believe in overthrowing every government that has bad condidtions that set a stage for a terrorist mentality. The Saudi government is not the Hussein regime or the Taliban. Those governments existed in such a way that their overthrow was clearly justified. We only do that when the sum total of all of the factor levels is high enough. However, if our involvement in the Middle East really were all about evil acts for getting oil, Saudi Arabia would already be U.S. territory.

There is a lot to consider when it comes to going to war. What conditions, exactly, justify an invasion? What conditions justify tolerating or even actively supporting a tyrannical regime? These ideas imply that war sometimes has a cost that is too great to be repaid by the freedom and prosperity that democracy would bring, don't they?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

My main idea was that, though they are unchecked politically, it is assumed tyrannical governments have substantially lower economic power than democracies. What the source of economic weakness actually comes from is not very relevant to the idea that dictators are militarily weaker than democracies, in general.

I agree with that.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

If dictators are militarily weaker than democracies, in general, doesn't this imply that wars between democracies would be substantially more costly? Regardless of democracy's inherent civility, isn't there an economic barrier that keeps democracies from attacking each other as well?

That's true too, but I don't think it would happen even without that economic barrier. And the economic barrier is the result of other things also. For one thing, a clearly unjustifiable invasion would kill a country's tourism. I want to go to Holland next summer, but if they invaded Belgium and made it theirs just to take over Belgium's wheat or something, there is no way I would go to Holland. I wouldn't trust the government not to do something insane to me. It would also negatively affect their stock market and other things. But I still think the economic barrier is unnecessary for preventing outrageous acts of invasion.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

There is a lot to consider when it comes to going to war. What conditions, exactly, justify an invasion? What conditions justify tolerating or even actively supporting a tyrannical regime? These ideas imply that war sometimes has a cost that is too great to be repaid by the freedom and prosperity that democracy would bring, don't they?

It's hard to give a short rule on when an invasion is justified. One thing that is almost always necessary is that the government is despiccably evil. I can't think right off of a situation where an invasion would be moral without that factor. The government also has to be an extreme threat, and in a cost benefit analysis, the benefit has to be really high above the cost. It's very difficult to universally define how much higher.

I don't believe in fully supporting tyrranical regimes. However, I do believe in joining them to fight common enemies and, in some cases, trading with them or making other deals with them, depending on how extreme the necessity is. I don't believe in just flat out helping them do evil. The word "supporting" has different connotations, and I am against some of those connotations but not others. The Soviet Union was the biggest enemy we ever had, other than the Nazis. However, when the Nazis were the enemy of both of us, we joined together with Britain and defeated the Nazis. So in that way we "supported" the Soviet Union, but they were still our enemies, and we did not work with them to organize their totalitarian ways. In that respect, we did not "support" them. We were against them, but we needed their help. That is how we have been with a lot of governments.

Yes, some times even freedom and prosperity for a nation are not enough for a war, at least according to most democracies. War is just too big of a deal most of the time. We are not fighting in Sudan right now because that would be purely humanitarian in regard to just one country, but Iraq had the same type of humanitarian element plus a long list of other ones, so the need to invade Iraq seemed apparent. I personally believe we should invade Sudan. I think any government that engages in genocide should be overthrown. My government is more cautious than that. Really, I think the entire world should come together and overthrow governments like the one in Sudan. I want the whole world to be democratized, but I don't think my country should try to do it alone. It absolutely sucks that the world won't come together and stamp out tyrrany. I hope some day it will.

What about a tyrannical democracies? Its funny that Saddam claimed to be the elected president of Iraq up to the very end.

Originally Posted by Alric

What about a tyrannical democracies? Its funny that Saddam claimed to be the elected president of Iraq up to the very end.

Saddam got 100% of the vote. Go figure.

From Universal Mind
Yes, some times even freedom and prosperity for a nation are not enough for a war, at least according to most democracies. War is just too big of a deal most of the time. We are not fighting in Sudan right now because that would be purely humanitarian in regard to just one country, but Iraq had the same type of humanitarian element plus a long list of other ones, so the need to invade Iraq seemed apparent. I personally believe we should invade Sudan. I think any government that engages in genocide should be overthrown. My government is more cautious than that. Really, I think the entire world should come together and overthrow governments like the one in Sudan. I want the whole world to be democratized, but I don't think my country should try to do it alone. It absolutely sucks that the world won't come together and stamp out tyrrany. I hope some day it will.

Now we are far enough away from the purpose of the War On Terror to look on it with eyes fit for judging. War, as we see, cannot often be used to liberate people living in oppression(the cause of most terrorism), because it is costly. In fact, war is most often used to eliminate a pressing international threat, as you believe Saddam's regime was; the subsequent, secondary obligation is to install a democracy in its place.

Also established is the fact that war is often too costly and deadly to pursue, especially to help countries whose harm is isolated to their territory. Unfortunately, this may be the case with the Iraq war, and other countries may have seen in it the consequences of not sufficiently measuring the magnitude of the threat posed by other rogue states, discouraging them from any significant participation. If the U.S., with ten times the military spending of its closest competitor, China, cannot quickly win and secure the peace of a nation the size of Iraq, there is little reason for other, weaker nations to see any benefit in engaging in similar conflicts.

If the U.S. remains in Iraq until security is established, we know that the monetary costs will rise even further, and in the end, what is gained? The country of Iraq will be a democracy, but the rest of the world may be stricken with the idea that overthrowing a dictator means a decade or more of crippling monetary and humanitarian costs; the seeds of the terrorist mindset, which can spark further wars.

Where do we go from here? Are we capable of promoting democracy while occupying Iraq? Could new threats force the U.S. to abandon that country and attempt a third new democracy? How are we promoting democracy today, and how are we undermining it?

How do we dispel the idea that the cost of democracy, the cost of freedom, is too high?

war on boredom,
war on work,
spatial placelessness still sucks
mcmansions still suck,
life not a living,
5 hour "work" weeks,
more recreation, more play, more sex,
only ever sleeping in, never sell your time to live


blah blah blah
me/theodore kaczynski in 08!!!

It will be a while before the world really sees how much better Iraq ends up being. By then, we will have let go of our dominance and occupation. That is when most of the world will believe that such missions are worth it.

If we can bring about that mentality, then hopefully we will have most of the world's help in freeing all dictatorships. Even though it is such a difficult task for our Coalition, when 150 or so countries give major military support, things will be much easier.

Sure, but what other country has the economic power to spend 500+billion per year on the military in peacetime and 50% more during a war? Economists and generals are unsure that our own military effort is sustainable. No other democracy is capable of much more than a tenth of that effort, and it is arguable that no more than a few Iraq-style occupations can be sustained by even the largest of coalitions, which would pose a unified-command conundrum and which would leave the world vulnerable to attacks by opportunistic rogue states and terrorists, which would thrive in the ensuing chaos.

In addition, it must be ascertained whether Iraq's future freedom and democracy will be worth the cost of the war at all. As has been established, some wars aren't worth it. If, as we have discussed, Iraq's economic future depends on its ability to leverage its current assets, then there is a real uncertainty in its future, and a great possibility of economic instability. If Iraq never becomes prosperous, or simply takes too long to become prosperous, while other tyrannical governments threaten world peace, the cause of democracy around the world would suffer grave harm instead of benefiting from it.

The issue is more complex than simply waiting for the rest of the world to compose itself to our liking. Each year, each life, each dollar spent in nation-building war is spent against the global freedom that it was supposed to encourage and for a single isolated and uncertain democracy. Is there really no other way to spread democracy?

You can't really force freedom down someones throat.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It will be a while before the world really sees how much better Iraq ends up being. By then, we will have let go of our dominance and occupation. That is when most of the world will believe that such missions are worth it.

If we can bring about that mentality, then hopefully we will have most of the world's help in freeing all dictatorships.

It's not a war that can be won. The war is already lost. It's a deadly mistake. Costing more than you know. But perfect if you wanted to destroy America. It's not about democracy. They are lieing to you. And say goodbye to the value of your dollar. Ofcourse you would be silly enough to buy into the idea your trying to help Iraq. You can't even help your own country. Stop being so self righteous and blindly unpatriotic.

Lastly you wouldn't know a dictatorship if you were living under one.

Let his ideas stand on their merits. A lot of people agree with him, and it's only fair to debate as equals instead of automatically denouncing each other, regardless of how wrong we believe each other to be.

If you attack a person's ideas, their resolve to believe them becomes ever stronger, but if you provide an alternative and discuss the merits of each idea, a true consensus can emerge that discards the unfounded assumptions of each.