QuoteHistorically, open democratic societies breed more domestic terrorism than oppressive military juntas, by a huge fucking margin.

This is pure comedy right here.  'Cause you know, there's carbombings every day in, say Canada or the EU.

QuoteIn 9/11 none of the planes attacked a military base, they attacked symbols, and MOST of those symbols were civilian in nature.

No shit, Sherlock.  That's how terrorism fucking works.  It's the whole fucking point.  Breaking the will of the people to fight by scaring the shit out of them.  

QuoteNow, as I miss a lot more news than I used to: has there been a terrorist attack against the US since 2001? I haven't seen one.

I don't seem to recall terribly regular terrorist incidents prior to 2001 either.  Are you suggesting the US should be taking credit for business as usual?

Quote from: SpikeAgain, you worship at the Alter of Democracy so feircely that you view anyone who would chose to live differently as 'not having a say'.  People always have a say.  Recall that the government always rules at the whim of the people. Without people, no government can prevail.

:confused:

I don't understand how anyone could possibly argue this.  'People always have a say'?  What does that mean?

Without basic democratic institutions (and attendant freedoms) people do not 'always have a say'.  They face coercion and oppression.  This is so obvious, I can't believe that I actually have to state it.

Do you honestly believe that Stalin's regime ruled 'at the whim of the people'?  If you do, there is no point in talking further with you, since your beliefs have no relation to the real world.

I don't 'worship at the altar of democracy'.  I'm simply making a conceptual point: we have no epistemic warrant for thinking that a particular government truly 'represents' its people without certain institutional mechanisms, viz. democratic institutions and procedures (or at least adequately representative institutions).

Quote from: SpikeWhile  I don't have any polls, I do have quotes from magazines.

:rolleyes:  Anecdotal evidence is hardly a reliable basis for making arguments.

Quote from: SpikeAs for chosing to be unfree: Haiti, in the wake of abolition, there are documented incidents of former slaves rioting and destroying their former plantations because their masters would not take them back.  Damning.  Instituionalized? Perhaps.  

Well, I didn't want to go down this route, but suffice to say that I think that people in abusive relationships don't have a proper appreciation of their own interests.

Quote from: SpikeWhen you consider the tendancy of Americans to vote in dynastic politcal families over common men, you get the idea that for many of us the words Democracy are paid more lip service than actual faith.  Who do I mean? Kennedy, Gore, Bush. What about the wife of Sonny Bono, who 'inherited' his seat?  There are more, but those names should suffice for now.

No existing democracy is perfect, including (especially?) the U.S.

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is pure comedy right here.  'Cause you know, there's carbombings every day in, say Canada or the EU.



No shit, Sherlock.  That's how terrorism fucking works.  It's the whole fucking point.  Breaking the will of the people to fight by scaring the shit out of them.  



I don't seem to recall terribly regular terrorist incidents prior to 2001 either.  Are you suggesting the US should be taking credit for business as usual?

Really now, J.  The 'original' terrorists, where we get our ideas about bomb throwing anarchists were russians in the 19th century under the Czars.  Or the Symbionise Liberation Front, who were founded in colleges in California?  Or the  Red Brigades, which fluctuated from middle class criminals, to middle class, college educated political terrorists depending on the time of day?  



You should learn to read before posting. My fucking point was those acts were Terroristic Acts for the exact same fucking reason YOU just tried to argue. Great. We agree. Your point?


Really now? USS Cole, embassy bombings in Africa with Al-Qaeda ties, the FIRST WTC bombing in 1993?  I don't have the link handy, but I know for a fucking fact that there were 8 major terrorist attacks against the US in the 8 years leading up to 9/11... 8 that were linked to Al-Qaeda. There were closer to a dozen all told. Since 9/11? Not so many.   Your memory is very selective, J.  Very fucking selective.  Notably, during those 8 years the US responded to NONE of the attacks in any way, barring stern language.  Military intervention may not be the best solution, but by my count it's several thousand times better than doing nothing at all.

Well, we DID blow up an aspirin factory in the Sudan and a few tents in Afghanistan... AND strong words. VERY strongly worded statements, if I remember. :muttering:

Quote from: Akrasia:confused:

I don't understand how anyone could possibly argue this.  'People always have a say'?  What does that mean?

Without basic democratic institutions (and attendant freedoms) people do not 'always have a say'.  They face coercion and oppression.  This is so obvious, I can't believe that I actually have to state it.

Do you honestly believe that Stalin's regime ruled 'at the whim of the people'?  If you do, there is no point in talking further with you, since your beliefs have no relation to the real world.

I don't 'worship at the altar of democracy'.  I'm simply making a conceptual point: we have no epistemic warrant for thinking that a particular government truly 'represents' its people without certain institutional mechanisms, viz. democratic institutions and procedures (or at least adequately representative institutions).



:rolleyes:  Anecdotal evidence is hardly a reliable basis for making arguments.



Well, I didn't want to go down this route, but suffice to say that I think that people in abusive relationships don't have a proper appreciation of their own interests.



No existing democracy is perfect, including (especially?) the U.S.

People always have a say.  If Saddam didn't get people to enforce his whims, then his tyranny is only as long as the reach of his arm. Historically people revolt when they can't stand their rulers any longer.  The success or failure of those revolts is irrelevant to our discussion here.  Were there revolts against Saddam? Certainly he believed so, and the Kurds would probably have loved one to rise up.  

The Czars in Russia were unpopular, the revolt succeeded despite oppression and coercision, and we get 50 years of Anastasia fetishizing. Communisim fell why? Because the people had enough of it. Governments, no matter how oppressive, can not exist in a vacuum. That vacuum is filled with people propping it up.  It sucks to be on the wrong end of the gun, but if too few people are on the right end of the gun, then the government falls. Always.


You do worship at the alter of democracy. Simply this, you feel that no one is free unless they are properly represented by a western style democratic instituition.  Thus, throughout history NO ONE could have been free until, say, 1776.  If you feel generous, you can push it back a few centuries to the signing of the Magna Carta, but I doubt you are.   Are people 'free' under democracy? To an extent. Democracies can inflict evils upon their citizens as surely as any other form of government, or need I remind you that the US was notably slower than other 'western democracies' in freeing her slaves?


Ancedotal evidence is not as firm as scientificly rigorous studies, true. But I assure you that you are as guilty as I am of using it. Roll your eyes at yourself, if you please.

I never claimed that abusive relationships were healthy.  You asked for evidence of people wanting to be unfree, I provided it.  Dismiss it if you like, but YOU DID ASK.  


As for your last comment: I wasn't trying to point out that our democracy wasn't perfect, I was pointing out the natural human tendency to ignore democratic processes in favor of comforting familirity in their leaders, their rulers.   But, if you won't accept that you are in fact arguing in favor of an ideological standpoint, I see no reason to try to debate this with you. At least most churchmen are willing to admit they ARE ideologs, which is why I can debate with them the nature of God.

Quote from: SpikePeople always have a say. ...

*sigh*

This reasoning is overly simplistic.  It is indeed true that, in certain extreme situations, people can and do rise up against oppressive regimes.

But to infer that in the absence of such revolts there exists general support for the regime in question is manifestly fallacious.  

An oppressive regime uses coercion, threats, imprisonment, and so forth, to maintain itself.  Engaging in a revolt against such a regime is a very risky thing to do.  The 1956 Hungarian revolt was ruthlessly crushed.  Not all revolts work out as peacefully as the 'Velvet Revolutions' of 1989.

People might choose to live under an oppressive regime rather than risk torture or death.  That does not mean that they support that oppressive regime.

Quote from: SpikeYou do worship at the alter of democracy. Simply this, you feel that no one is free unless they are properly represented by a western style democratic instituition.  Thus, throughout history NO ONE could have been free until, say, 1776.  ...

More fallacious reasoning.  :rolleyes:

Look, I never stated that, in the absence of democracy, NO ONE was free.  In earlier societies some people were free.  In ancient Athens, propertied upper class males were free, but not women and slaves.  In pre-democratic societies, the majority of people were not free.

My point is rather simple: unless you have democratic institutions, you have no reliable basis for thinking that the majority of people in a given country support the government.

Quote from: Spike...  You asked for evidence of people wanting to be unfree, I provided it.  Dismiss it if you like, but YOU DID ASK.  ...

Actually, I didn't ask.  Sorry for the miscommunication.  The comment was merely an aside, gesturing towards deeper philosophical issues that I didn't want to get into at this time.

Quote from: SpikeBut, if you won't accept that you are in fact arguing in favor of an ideological standpoint, I see no reason to try to debate this with you. At least most churchmen are willing to admit they ARE ideologs, which is why I can debate with them the nature of God.

I am arguing for a conceptual point: viz., it doesn't make sense to attribute 'national self-direction' to a people who lack the necessary institutional mechanisms to collectively exercise self-direction.  

You can call it an 'ideological' point if you like.  I couldn't care less what label you want to apply to it.  I see it as a conceptual point: I'm making a claim about the necessary conditions for attributing properties to peoples.  If you disagree with me, give me arguments.  If calling my position 'ideological' is simply an excuse to not take my position seriously, then I think that's lame.

Quote from: SpikeDemocracies can inflict evils upon their citizens as surely as any other form of government, or need I remind you that the US was notably slower than other 'western democracies' in freeing her slaves?

The US was not a democracy at the time the slaves were freed.

Quote from: droogThe US was not a democracy at the time the slaves were freed.

Do you suggest some refinement of the term, or are you making some snide aside that only you get?

Quote from: SpikeDo you suggest some refinement of the term, or are you making some snide aside that only you get?

A reasonable view is that all (adult) persons in a democracy have an equal vote.  Demos = People.  

While earlier systems of government may have called themselves 'democracies', that was only because they unjustly restricted the scope of 'people' (i.e. to exclude slaves, women, etc.).

Akrasia: You have implicitly stated that without democratic representation people are perforce NOT FREE. Only, democratic representation was most certainly not the norm anywhere in the world until very recently.  Thus, you ARE saying just that.

More: you seem to be equating a lack of democracy to totalinarinism, as if you only have one or the other, which is where I strongly disagree.  Are people under a brutally oppressive regime unfree? Certainly. The cure is not necessarily democracy, or even democratic instituitions.  We KNOW democratic instituitions can work, more we trust them, sometimes unreasonably.

Let's go back to my non-mythical russian. Does he want Putin's stormtroopers to kick down his door and slaughter his family? Of course not. What he does want is for Putin, or any russian government to be ruthless and effective when dealing with enemies, foriegn and domestic. He doesn't want terrorists running free to take schoolchildren hostage, he doesn't want opium farmers just over the mountains in the next country over. He'd rather loose 'freedom' for it. That is his call, and more open democratic reforms won't give him what he actually wants, which is a strong leader to keep things stable.


So: Iraq has a culture with no real history of democracy, or even loud outcries for it. We remove a strongman, and because we don't believe in strongmen we try to make an egalitarian democratic government in it's place.

Only, Iraq is full of angry, competeing tribes who don't think in egalitarian or nationalist terms, but tribal and religious sectarian ones.  A strongman does not necessarily have to be a despot, though yes, they do tend to go that way, don't they.

This puts us on the horns of a dilemna: we know a strongman can keep the peace, but we are utterly opposed to letting one take over.  We are unwilling, or incapable, of filling the role ourselves.  

So: Find me a solution that works and stop trying to claim that 'if only we gave them the necessary grounding in democracy they'd be just like us'.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI think if we left Iraq, all the folks in Iraq would stop killing us.

The problem is, not all of the people killing folks in Iraq are Iraqis... there are jihadists from Syria, Iran and elsewhere, not to mention international terrorists. Even if we repel those folks from our shores, we face the prosepct of having the entire Middle East ruled by religious fanatics with lots of money to buy weapons and fund attacks.

Quote from: SpikeThat is hardly implicit in not telling people how to live.  

Seriously.  


My opinion should be obviously clear. If someone attacks you, you stop them, by whatever means necessary. Survival... war, is brutal, ugly and painful. It should be.  If you can not just stop them from attacking you, you destroy them utterly, root and branch.  

Telling them how to live has nothing to do with it.

Your approach is entirely punative and lacks compassion. I would rather that we try as best we can to change people from enemies into allies without waiting for them to attack us, and then destroying them.

Quote from: SpikeAkrasia: You have implicitly stated that without democratic representation people are perforce NOT FREE. Only, democratic representation was most certainly not the norm anywhere in the world until very recently.  Thus, you ARE saying just that.

A 'People' as a collective agent is not free ('self-governing') without democratic institutions.

That statement is perfectly compatible with thinking that particular persons within an largely 'unfree' society can be free (to some extent).

Quote from: SpikeMore: you seem to be equating a lack of democracy to totalinarinism...

No, not necessarily.  There is a continuum here between, say, an 'ideal democracy' and a 'complete tyranny'.

My point is simply that there is a point on that continuum at which it no longer makes sense to attribute to a people (as a collective agent) meaningful self-direction or self-government.  That point, roughly, is a set of adequately representative institutions and associated freedoms.  

Perhaps you think that the relevant point is somewhere else, in which case we can have a conversation.

Quote from: SpikeOnly, Iraq is full of angry, competeing tribes who don't think in egalitarian or nationalist terms, but tribal and religious sectarian ones.  A strongman does not necessarily have to be a despot, though yes, they do tend to go that way, don't they.

This puts us on the horns of a dilemna: we know a strongman can keep the peace, but we are utterly opposed to letting one take over.  We are unwilling, or incapable, of filling the role ourselves.  

I agree that it is quite possible that democracy is not viable in Iraq now, or for the near future -- aside from the Kurdish part, of course, which is (reasonably) democratic.

But a system of government less oppressive than Hussein's is certainly possible.

Quote from: SpikeSo: Find me a solution that works and stop trying to claim that 'if only we gave them the necessary grounding in democracy they'd be just like us'.

I never claimed that.

Quote from: SpikeDo you suggest some refinement of the term, or are you making some snide aside that only you get?

Both....

Quote from: ZalmoxisThe problem is, not all of the people killing folks in Iraq are Iraqis... there are jihadists from Syria, Iran and elsewhere, not to mention international terrorists. Even if we repel those folks from our shores, we face the prosepct of having the entire Middle East ruled by religious fanatics with lots of money to buy weapons and fund attacks.

Which is pretty much the situation now.

I certainly dont think our activities in Iraq have altered that situation FOR THE BETTER anyway.