4 ms·

>> all the time Uh? What examples [of deposing democracies then invading when the dictator becomes too oppressive] exist after the cold war? Edit: Point is, t

by berntb 10y ago

>> all the time Uh? What examples [of deposing democracies then invading when the dictator becomes too oppressive] exist after the cold war? Edit: Point is, there was a war of influence in the cold war; dictators played Soviet/West against each others for support. E.g. South Korea and Taiwan became democratic after the cold war, to not risk being ostracized.

croon 10y ago
Which one? Also, why the limitation?
kurthr 10y ago
Yeah, even Reagan (Grenada & Panama) and the Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. The world is slightly different after Kissinger left office (Argentina)... realpolitik is really more of a Euro-Russian thing than a US thing. Although that could change again with the new president.
- tormeh 10y ago
  You mean the US's middle East policy hasn't been driven by realpolitik? That it was idealistic? Why the has the US propped up so many dictatorships? Saudi Arabia?
  - berntb 10y ago
    I think most people believe their own country's propaganda. :-) In Sweden, since that is the subject, we really used to be naive and trust what we were told. Some of the typical characteristics you saw, all the way back to before written history, is that we are group oriented and do what we were told. This made for a high trust society, which is probably what made the place work. But no more, the society elites are really destroying this trust now. That the democratic world supports Saudi A is an extreme example of realpolitik, of course. We need stability in that part of the world.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  >> Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. I would use the word "democracy" pretty loosely when it comes to Iraq. A consistent insurgency with widespread sectarian violence and much of the Sunni population not taking part in the elections, it was hardly what anybody would deem a "democracy".
  - scythe 10y ago
    Not to mention banning the Ba'ath party, which, while it had ruled under a dictator, nonetheless had the support of much of the population, who were disenfranchised as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Iraq_Region#2003_invasion_and_new_Iraqi_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_... >In June 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority banned the Ba'ath Party, and banned all members of the party's top four tiers from the new government and from public schools and colleges, a move which some criticised for blocking too many experienced people from participating in the new government. Thousands were removed from their positions, including doctors, professors, school teachers and bureaucrats. Many teachers lost their jobs, causing protests and demonstrations at schools and universities.
- finid 10y ago
  In the case of Iraq, I wouldn't call it democracy. We just took a secular state and made it an Islamic state - a very unstable one at that. Did we stop there? No! We did the same to Libya. And if not for Russia, we'd have completed a trifecta in Syria.
  - berntb 10y ago
    A revolution is scary, the dice are thrown in the air and you have no clue how they fall. It didn't go well in Libya, so far. But mainly Putin and his employees seem to think that it was bad to support an uprising to get rid of the previous junta in Libya (and they are probably mostly upset because Gadaffi was a good customer). And about Syria -- how many tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of civilians have the Assad regime bombed/tortured/etc to death?! That ought to weigh heavily on Obama in the history books. (Regarding Iraq, I do believe in that it was an honest attempt, but of course it is hard to go to a functional democracy in half a generation. The spectacular failure was extreme, of course...)
    - ggame 10y ago
      Revolutions are reasonably predictable, after all, history rhymes. From my point of view I would agree that Libya was better off with Gaddafi. Gaddafi was negotiating a surrender with free elections but Hillary Clinton blocked it because she wanted him dead and needed to boost her foreign policy resume. She then bragged about it afterwards. Libya is unlikely to recover in a meaningful way for the duration of the modern islamic uprising - which will be a very long time. Syria was, is, going to be a massacre either way. We are much much better off to have Assad winning. Obama's support of Al Nusra / ISIS in their fight against Syria / Russia resulted in much greater destruction, suffering and loss of life that what would have happened without Obamas help. Why the US is pushing so hard for an economic war / proxy war / shooting war with Russia is pretty complex and out of scope for this response. But as Noam Chomsky would say; modern states maintain power either by force or by propaganda. As a democracy we get the propaganda. To round it out; Iraq was created by the British with the intent of making an easy to control failed state. Hence why their borders make no sense. The British have a long tradition of this and are very good at it. The fact that Iraq failed and keeps failing should be of no surprise to anyone.

by berntb 10y ago

croon 10y ago

Which one? Also, why the limitation?

kurthr 10y ago

Yeah, even Reagan (Grenada & Panama) and the Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. The world is slightly different after Kissinger left office (Argentina)... realpolitik is really more of a Euro-Russian thing than a US thing. Although that could change again with the new president.

tormeh 10y ago
You mean the US's middle East policy hasn't been driven by realpolitik? That it was idealistic? Why the has the US propped up so many dictatorships? Saudi Arabia?
- berntb 10y ago
  I think most people believe their own country's propaganda. :-) In Sweden, since that is the subject, we really used to be naive and trust what we were told. Some of the typical characteristics you saw, all the way back to before written history, is that we are group oriented and do what we were told. This made for a high trust society, which is probably what made the place work. But no more, the society elites are really destroying this trust now. That the democratic world supports Saudi A is an extreme example of realpolitik, of course. We need stability in that part of the world.
at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. I would use the word "democracy" pretty loosely when it comes to Iraq. A consistent insurgency with widespread sectarian violence and much of the Sunni population not taking part in the elections, it was hardly what anybody would deem a "democracy".
- scythe 10y ago
  Not to mention banning the Ba'ath party, which, while it had ruled under a dictator, nonetheless had the support of much of the population, who were disenfranchised as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Iraq_Region#2003_invasion_and_new_Iraqi_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_... >In June 2003, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority banned the Ba'ath Party, and banned all members of the party's top four tiers from the new government and from public schools and colleges, a move which some criticised for blocking too many experienced people from participating in the new government. Thousands were removed from their positions, including doctors, professors, school teachers and bureaucrats. Many teachers lost their jobs, causing protests and demonstrations at schools and universities.
finid 10y ago
In the case of Iraq, I wouldn't call it democracy. We just took a secular state and made it an Islamic state - a very unstable one at that. Did we stop there? No! We did the same to Libya. And if not for Russia, we'd have completed a trifecta in Syria.
- berntb 10y ago
  A revolution is scary, the dice are thrown in the air and you have no clue how they fall. It didn't go well in Libya, so far. But mainly Putin and his employees seem to think that it was bad to support an uprising to get rid of the previous junta in Libya (and they are probably mostly upset because Gadaffi was a good customer). And about Syria -- how many tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of civilians have the Assad regime bombed/tortured/etc to death?! That ought to weigh heavily on Obama in the history books. (Regarding Iraq, I do believe in that it was an honest attempt, but of course it is hard to go to a functional democracy in half a generation. The spectacular failure was extreme, of course...)
  - ggame 10y ago
    Revolutions are reasonably predictable, after all, history rhymes. From my point of view I would agree that Libya was better off with Gaddafi. Gaddafi was negotiating a surrender with free elections but Hillary Clinton blocked it because she wanted him dead and needed to boost her foreign policy resume. She then bragged about it afterwards. Libya is unlikely to recover in a meaningful way for the duration of the modern islamic uprising - which will be a very long time. Syria was, is, going to be a massacre either way. We are much much better off to have Assad winning. Obama's support of Al Nusra / ISIS in their fight against Syria / Russia resulted in much greater destruction, suffering and loss of life that what would have happened without Obamas help. Why the US is pushing so hard for an economic war / proxy war / shooting war with Russia is pretty complex and out of scope for this response. But as Noam Chomsky would say; modern states maintain power either by force or by propaganda. As a democracy we get the propaganda. To round it out; Iraq was created by the British with the intent of making an easy to control failed state. Hence why their borders make no sense. The British have a long tradition of this and are very good at it. The fact that Iraq failed and keeps failing should be of no surprise to anyone.