Staggering numbers on Syria..

[Aeson]

Gaddafi was already facing a rebellion ... shelling his own cities ... before the West intervened. That's not stability.

[Aeson]

in any case what i meant by the history of the region is that strongman dictators have been most effective at keeping violent islamists at bay.

The process is blatantly obvious. Moderate voices are eliminated, resentment to oppression builds, the oppressed are driven to more extreme alternatives because simply voicing their resentment isn't allowed.

however, religious organisations become the organs through which popular descent is expressed and dictators cannot suppress them entirely as this would cause uproar. islamists thus become the popular voice. a side effect of this is that even islamists who get involved in the democratic process and win elections, in algeria and eygpt for example, find themselves unable to take power or are soon removed from it (i remember having an argument with aeson about eygpt at the time - he of course supported the coup). what that means in the context of the future of libya is that the most likely figure to emerge and impose 'stability' is another dictator.

You're just ignoring the responsibility of the dictator for eliminating moderate/civil opposition and driving people to more extreme alternatives.

As for Egypt, or anywhere, I have always and always will support the right of a population to overthrow authoritarian regimes. Morsi was abusing his office, trying to make himself into a dictator, which is why his overthrow was a good thing. (Same will hold true for Sisi or anyone who tries the subvert the democratic process.)

[onejayhawk]

The process is blatantly obvious. Moderate voices are eliminated, resentment to oppression builds, the oppressed are driven to more extreme alternatives because simply voicing their resentment isn't allowed.

Sounds like this forum.

J

[Aeson]

well i said that the devil you know is sometimes better, which of course means that sometimes he isn't; it depends on the situation.

The phrase supposes a devil you don't know. It is simply a justification for oppression based on fear of change.

certainly in this situation francia was a dictator whose measures improved people's lives.

Better to be poor and free than slightly less poor and constantly fearful for your life lest you say the wrong thing ...

George Washington had an opportunity to install himself as monarch or become president for life after the US won independence. He made the right choice and set a precedent. Francia in something of a similar situation made a horrible choice, on top of the attrocities he committed directly, setting a precedent that Paraguayans have been suffering for ever since.

[Aeson]

Sounds like this forum.

You think Ben and Kid are moderates?

[ZEE]

Sounds like this forum.

J

This Poast made me chucKle.

[C0ckney]

The phrase supposes a devil you don't know. It is simply a justification for oppression based on fear of change.

i think perhaps you didn't understand what i wrote.

Better to be poor and free than slightly less poor and constantly fearful for your life lest you say the wrong thing ...

George Washington had an opportunity to install himself as monarch or become president for life after the US won independence. He made the right choice and set a precedent. Francia in something of a similar situation made a horrible choice, on top of the attrocities he committed directly, setting a precedent that Paraguayans have been suffering for ever since.

and this is a great example of a strong opinion combined with zero knowledge. welcome to apolyton i suppose...

[kentonio]

Do you disagree with the piece that Laz wrote about Francia and Paraguay?

[C0ckney]

The process is blatantly obvious. Moderate voices are eliminated, resentment to oppression builds, the oppressed are driven to more extreme alternatives because simply voicing their resentment isn't allowed.

yes, this is one of the possible effects of the process i described. the real point, however, is that in these muslim countries (almost) all opposition has a religious character because it is these religious organisations that are allowed space to operate. this space is denied to other potential sources of opposition, socialists, human rights groups, trade unions, or what might very broadly be called cultural organisations. as a result very different and diverse groups emerge - everything from the muslim brotherhood to hezbollah to al-qaeda - but all of them under some kind of religious umbrella, and this obviously affects the character of the opposition.

You're just ignoring the responsibility of the dictator for eliminating moderate/civil opposition and driving people to more extreme alternatives.

As for Egypt, or anywhere, I have always and always will support the right of a population to overthrow authoritarian regimes. Morsi was abusing his office, trying to make himself into a dictator, which is why his overthrow was a good thing. (Same will hold true for Sisi or anyone who tries the subvert the democratic process.)

yes for some reason you seem to believe that creating space for violent islamists "lead[s] to greater personal freedoms", yet conversely when different islamists enter the democratic process and actually win elections, you're happy to see them ousted by a military coup. it's frankly bizarre.

[onejayhawk]

You think Ben and Kid are moderates?

What would make you think that? I am talking of the ones that don't post.

J

[C0ckney]

Do you disagree with the piece that Laz wrote about Francia and Paraguay?

i haven't read it. do you have a link handy?

i will say though that in general, the view on paraguay at that time in the west is very different to the view taken by south american historians.

[Aeson]

i think perhaps you didn't understand what i wrote.

No, you clearly don't understand what the phrase actually means.

and this is a great example of a strong opinion combined with zero knowledge. welcome to apolyton i suppose...

Francia chose to be a dictator, create a police state, execute dissidents, remove personal freedoms, and limited higher education. That's how he helped found Paraguay, and the legacy he left it. In any case, it's pretty funny that an expat living in South America would be so supportive of his regime, given that if he had the chance he would have confiscated all your property and sent you packing or to prison ...

[C0ckney]

i am not prepared to educate you and then explain why you are wrong, so i will simply say that you are wrong and suggest that you address your knowledge deficiency in this area.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

i haven't read it. do you have a link handy?

It's been lost from the Poly archives, but CFC appears to have a copy still.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=46386

[Aeson]

yes, this is one of the possible effects of the process i described. the real point, however, is that in these muslim countries (almost) all opposition has a religious character because it is these religious organisations that are allowed space to operate. this space is denied to other potential sources of opposition, socialists, human rights groups, trade unions, or what might very broadly be called cultural organisations. as a result very different and diverse groups emerge - everything from the muslim brotherhood to hezbollah to al-qaeda - but all of them under some kind of religious umbrella, and this obviously affects the character of the opposition.

Which is why dictators are such horrible influences on the region. (And to be fair, any region.) People will throw off oppression and ideologically align themselves against them. We shouldn't ever support the oppressors. Otherwise we are forcing people away from our ideology. (Which if it wasn't for the propensity to support oppression for "other people", would be a much better thing than it currently is.)

yes for some reason you seem to believe that creating space for violent islamists "lead[s] to greater personal freedoms", yet conversely when different islamists enter the democratic process and actually win elections, you're happy to see them ousted by a military coup. it's frankly bizarre.

You are just very short-sighted. What Egypt needs is a government that will promote individual freedoms. They certainlly didn't have that with Mubarak, and Morsi proved he wasn't going to allow it. Egyptians need to keep kicking out anyone who gets in the way. If Sisi tries the same thing he should be kicked out too. Because if Egypt just settles for a despot ... that's all they will ever have.