Staggering numbers on Syria..

[Aeson]

What would have happened to us if at the time of the reformation, religious extremists (some of whom were burning people alive for being witches) would have caused an outside power to install a puppet dictator and create "stability" by eliminating all who dissented? Is that going to lead to the world you would have wanted to be born into?

[The Mad Monk]

Please don't confuse natural with good. It is natural to want to eat as much fat as possible, for example, and it served us well early on, but it works to our detriment now. That said, how many "populist uprisings" were really populist, and how many were were rival leaders trying to get more power? Throughout most of history, the "common man" had very little stake in these struggles, as one leader was just as brutal as the next, and they knew it.

[Aeson]

Please don't confuse natural with good.

I didn't say anything about equating natural with good. I said that it is natural that people will want to get rid of those who oppress them. (Yes, in this case that is a good thing. But I never claimed anything natural is good.)

That said, how many "populist uprisings" were really populist, and how many were were rival leaders trying to get more power? Throughout most of history, the "common man" had very little stake in these struggles, as one leader was just as brutal as the next, and they knew it.

You don't just leap from some guy clubbing a woman to carrying off to his cave to the (Star Trek) Federation. You get the magna carta at some point. Later you get the US Constitution. Even though you may end up with a Cromwell or two along the way. But the general course of human history has been towards wider and wider distribution of power.

Dictators are by definition diametrically opposed to wider distribution of power.

[onejayhawk]

The idea that a dictator is ever a good thing.

Scipio Africanus was a dictator.

J

[Aeson]

I suppose it's rather telling that the best counterpoint you can come up with was from around 2000 years ago ... a general who was elected as Consul, served under the Senate, and when the opportunity arose refused the honor of Dictator.

[kentonio]

Well me and Aeson rarely agree on much, but right now he's feeling like about the only other sane person in the thread. Seriously, we've reached a point where people are defending dictators and their right to carry out industrial scale mass murder, because those scary ISIS people are apparently worse?

Worse how exactly? Because they cut off heads, keep women as practically cattle and practice modern day slavery? In other words exactly what our 'allies' in Saudi Arabia have been doing for decades with our continual support?

[kentonio]

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.

Nicely put.

[C0ckney]

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.

well we've had one crystal clear example in this thread of the reverse being true.

[C0ckney]

and for a historical example how about josé gaspar rodrÃguez de francia.

[The Mad Monk]

I was just reading up on him. Interesting man.

[PLATO]

Libya and Syria have no comparisons.

If one were smart enough to look at the tribal history of Libya and how the country was ill-formed by the Italians, then you would easily see that brutality by one faction would be the only way to control the other two.

As far as the West stepping in, did we forget that the western tribal dominated army was planning a wholesale massacre of the eastern tribes? I am shocked that some would think that was okay in the name of "stability". Libya had deteriorated to that level on its own...or at least without western help.

It is clear that Libya never should have been one country, but three from the beginning...at the very least, it should have been two. Saying that Gaddafi's removal from power caused the instability is just simply ill-informed. The entire situation was unstable and growing worse by the day.

Libya is overwhelmingly Sunni and religion seems to have little to do with any conflict.

Syria, on the other hand, is a different situation. Syria is a homogeneous country currently being ruled by a wealthy and very much minority sect. The opposing sects are spread generally through the country and not geographically concentrated. This is far more a religious conflict than Libya is as the Allawites are Shi'a and 80% of the population is Sunni.

Given that Iran and Saudi are playing out a proxy fight in Syria, this simply makes the situation worse and much harder for the west to effectively intervene to stop the fighting.

[kentonio]

well we've had one crystal clear example in this thread of the reverse being true.

Except we haven't. You just expect shiny happy rainbows and sunshine to happen overnight. It could take decades to resolve and it would still be well worth the price.

[kentonio]

and for a historical example how about josé gaspar rodrÃguez de francia.

Clearly a great example..

Francia imbued Paraguay with a tradition of autocratic rule that lasted, with only a few breaks, until 1989.

You don't really life the concept of self determination much, do you?

[The Mad Monk]

I didn't say anything about equating natural with good. I said that it is natural that people will want to get rid of those who oppress them. (Yes, in this case that is a good thing. But I never claimed anything natural is good.)



You don't just leap from some guy clubbing a woman to carrying off to his cave to the (Star Trek) Federation. You get the magna carta at some point. Later you get the US Constitution. Even though you may end up with a Cromwell or two along the way. But the general course of human history has been towards wider and wider distribution of power.

No, it hasn't. There have been brief eras of democracy in limited areas that have been conquered from without or undermined from within. Show me Athens and I'll show you it's conquest by Sparta. Give me the Roman Republic and I'll show you Ceasar. The French Revolution? The Terror, than Napoleon. How long did the Wiemar republic last?

Most dictatorships are born of revolution, very few democracies are. Countless colonies win freedom from colonizers only to go on and oppress themselves. Russia traded one autocracy for another, as did China.

Democracy is not inevitable, it's a struggle, and it always will be.

[C0ckney]

Clearly a great example..

You don't really life the concept of self determination much, do you?

you haven't any idea of what you're talking about.