Staggering numbers on Syria..

[Aeson]

No, that would be comparing individuals making use of those forms of government. Is there any true distinction between monarchy and dictatorship, except for heredity? (even there, is that really a difference between them?)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. They are labels that are sometimes applied to the same thing, and sometimes not. Since no one was talking about monarchy at all though, it seems a rather weird tangent to take.

[Aeson]

The concept of "better the devil you know" when it comes to dictators oppressing their people is historically ignorant. History clearly shows that on average revolutions against dictators lead to greater personal freedoms. It wasn't so long ago that we in the West had dictators ... and after a series of revolutions (some which failed or were steps backwards) we eventually reached a point where we have more prosperity and personal freedoms than anyone else in the history of mankind.

Using our power to lock in dictators for other people is an absurd way of "helping them". It's even an absurd way of protecting our interests, unless our interests are the eternal oppression of people born within certain lines. Because our support of dictators has clearly made us much less safe, fomented the counter-movement that we currently fear most, and even curtails our own personal freedoms.

[onejayhawk]

The concept of "better the devil you know" when it comes to dictators oppressing their people is historically ignorant. History clearly shows that on average revolutions against dictators lead to greater personal freedoms. It wasn't so long ago that we in the West had dictators ... and after a series of revolutions (some which failed or were steps backwards) we eventually reached a point where we have more prosperity and personal freedoms than anyone else in the history of mankind.

Using our power to lock in dictators for other people is an absurd way of "helping them". It's even an absurd way of protecting our interests, unless our interests are the eternal oppression of people born within certain lines. Because our support of dictators has clearly made us much less safe, fomented the counter-movement that we currently fear most, and even curtails our own personal freedoms.

No, it isn't. There are cases on both sides and others where it is unclear. For example--Yugoslavia. There are many instances where a despot is all that keeps a country from a nasty civil war.

J

[C0ckney]

Oppressing people will always cause them to want to cast off that oppression. It will always create hatred. It will always create counter-movements that are more extremist.

To the extent it does so is the extend of the oppression.

if only that were true; if it were then people would have risen up long ago to cast off the oppression of the capitalism. the truth is that varied and diverse factors cause people to revolt and revolutions to happen. dictatorial regimes can be very stable, look at china for example.

Gaddafi is dead because Gaddafi created an unstable environment where a bunch of people (including the West) wanted to get rid of Gaddafi. That's not stability. That's a form of suicide.

Not everything is Gaddafi's fault, but he played a huge role in ensuring the current situation in Libya is what it is.

as has been pointed out, under gaddafi libya had the highest HDI in africa and people - as long as they weren't political opponents of the regime - could enjoy a decent life. gaddafi was winning the conflict, his troops were advancing on benghazi and people feared a massacre; this was in fact one of the main reasons the intervention happened. following said intervention the tide turned, gaddafi fell and libya began its descent into chaos.

[onejayhawk]

under gaddafi libya had the highest HDI in africa and people - as long as they weren't political opponents of the regime - could enjoy a decent life. gaddafi was winning the conflict, his troops were advancing on benghazi and people feared a massacre; this was in fact one of the main reasons the intervention happened. following said intervention the tide turned, gaddafi fell and libya began its descent into chaos.

An example on the other side would be the Shah of Iran. Living conditions are much worse now than the were in the 1970s.

J

[C0ckney]

The concept of "better the devil you know" when it comes to dictators oppressing their people is historically ignorant. History clearly shows that on average revolutions against dictators lead to greater personal freedoms. It wasn't so long ago that we in the West had dictators ... and after a series of revolutions (some which failed or were steps backwards) we eventually reached a point where we have more prosperity and personal freedoms than anyone else in the history of mankind.

Using our power to lock in dictators for other people is an absurd way of "helping them". It's even an absurd way of protecting our interests, unless our interests are the eternal oppression of people born within certain lines. Because our support of dictators has clearly made us much less safe, fomented the counter-movement that we currently fear most, and even curtails our own personal freedoms.

leaving aside your rather dubious view of history, what has been talked about in this thread are two situations: libya and syria where the west should have left / should leave things well alone.

[Aeson]

No, it isn't. There are cases on both sides and others where it is unclear. For example--Yugoslavia. There are many instances where a despot is all that keeps a country from a nasty civil war.

They all are unclear individually over even relatively short periods of time.

To keep the devil you know you have to keep the oppression for perpetuity. That is clearly worse than allowing a people to over time find their own freedom and prosperity. Also, the devil you know changes over time. So it's a stupid endeavour anyway.

Ideally we would promote personal freedom and prosperity in all cases. Instead we sell weapons to all sides and extract as many resources as we can, leaving the populations oppressed, armed, and poor. Then we sometimes try to clean up afterwards in a half-assed manner. Of course the results are ****ty.

[Aeson]

leaving aside your rather dubious view of history, what has been talked about in this thread are two situations: libya and syria where the west should have left / should leave things well alone.

I have always argued against getting involved militarily in Libya and Syria.

[C0ckney]

I have always argued against getting involved militarily in Libya and Syria.

then what are we arguing about?

[Aeson]

In the long term we would be better off with Islamic fundamentalism being able to prove itself on it's own merits. It is inherently oppressive, and people will rail against it and throw it off (or reform it) if given time. When we set ourselves up as the oppressors, instead they will rail against us and try to throw our puppets off ... and Islamic fundamentalism is benefiting and becoming more extreme because of our efforts.

[Aeson]

then what are we arguing about?

The idea that a dictator is ever a good thing.

[C0ckney]

The idea that a dictator is ever a good thing.

no one said they were good, merely that sometimes one is better than the alternative(s) on offer.

[Aeson]

That's what I was referring to. "Good" in a better/worse relative sense. I don't think supporting a dictator will ever lead to a better result in the long run than not supporting a dictator.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. They are labels that are sometimes applied to the same thing, and sometimes not. Since no one was talking about monarchy at all though, it seems a rather weird tangent to take.

That revolution is a natural response to dictatorship, when there are thousands of years of history that give the lie to that. Rule by strongmen is the natural state. Revolution as such is a much more recent phenomenon.

[Aeson]

That revolution is a natural response to dictatorship, when there are thousands of years of history that give the lie to that. Rule by strongmen is the natural state. Revolution as such is a much more recent phenomenon.

Um ... revolutions have occurred throughout history. I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Over the course of history revolutions have lead to further and further personal freedoms. That doesn't mean every revolution did so, or that a single revolution is going to make the leap from complete despotism up to the perfect free society in one go.

For instance, the US isn't free just because of the Revolutionary War. There were populist uprisings in the centuries before that forced monarchs to distribute more and more power. Those gains helped to ensure that future gains would also be made.