Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Taking out a democratic regime, no matter how bad, is always dicey morally. There is no question that taking out a regime that is not democratic and not providing prosperity is OK. And there is no question that taking out a democratic regime that is providing prosperity is wrong. It is in the grey areas where things get iffy.

If a non democratic regime is providing prosperity and the middle class is growing then probably it is better to just let evolution take its course. If the regime is democratic and screwing over the country is is also probably better to leave it alone. Before you can move in, you probably need to let it turn into despotic regime (which usually happens in countrys where prosperity continues to decline) before you intervene.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Perhaps you might visit NYC sometime. There is a large hole in the ground that might refute your suggestion that Afghanistan was less of a threat to the US than Iraq circa 2001.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

So we missed our window of opportunity with DC. We'll have to wait and see whether anyone can again match Barry.

ETA: Chicago's ripe, though.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

How so? You think it's lots of people? Okay, maybe. But very few Americans think he's a good guy.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

You had a rather different opinion about the democratically elected regime in Chile, I recall.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Iran under the Shah was growing a little but not much. His regime was corrupt and there was massive state intervention. The lack of growth, the actions of the secret police, and the corruption turned the middle class against the Shah. That revolution would not have happened without the support of the middle class. We put up with the Shahs bad economic policies because he was anti-communist and pro-isreal - kind of like Marcos in the Phillipines.

Iraq was a Kleptocracy in the seventies and eighties. The Baathist regime was a socialist and arab nationalist party. Under the Baathists the standard of living did not improve much if at all.

Flat. Wrong. Pressure for them to adopt good economic policies will not cause them to go the way of Iran and Iraq. Iran and Iraq did not go "bad" because of influence from the US to adopt prudent economic policies. And we did not put pressure on South Africa to adopt prudent economic policies, we put pressure on South Africa to adopt prudent political policies. South Africa was by far the most successful economy in Africa. At the time the apartheid regime stepped down the per capita income of the black population in South Africa was higher than the rest of Africa. However, there are some things more important than prosperity, and no amount of economic growth justified apartheid. Apartheid, like Genocide, is such an abhorrent political reality that anything justified its removal.

Subsidies won't help Mexico. That would just be throwing good money after bad. Prudent economic policies are the only thing that will help. Like Ireland, if Mexico would just open its economy and do some other things that Ireland did, its location next to the US would let its economy explode (like Irelands did).

BTW, props to Bush for being a voice of reason in the immigration debate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/..._immigration_9


I think everyone here can imagine how painful it for me to say that. But I did.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

No I didn't - you should review my posts. All I said is that there is no question that Chile is better off because of Pinochet. Under Allende the economy was crashing. Because of the crisis his own economic policies were creating, Allende was putting curbs on liberties and the democracy (to deal with the crisis). Under Allende the clear result was going to be economic collapse and the subsequent authoritarian regime. Pinochet created an economic miracle in Chile and because of it Chile is the most stable and propserous democracy in South America. The "left wing socialist government" that has been in power since he left has never changed is free market policies. His economic policies in Chile have become sancrosanct.

However, at the time there was no way to know that Pinochet was going to be such an effective overseer of the economy. We supported other dictators in South America, that unlike Pinochet, instituted bad economic policies and did not help their countrys.

Helping Pinochet at the time was a dicey moral question, but there is no question that we got lucky. The debate we had earlier was whether or no Pinochet was good for Chile.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Yes but they had surprize on their side. Without the element of surprize could they do it again? And couldn't have we prevented another one without invading Afghanistan? And couldn't
Afghanistan slide back into Taliban control again? It seems to me that all the arguments against invading Iraq could be used against invading Afghanistan.

Of course I supported and still support both invasions.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

So, without surprise, al Qaeda couldn't attack the US again... unless they managed to ally with a long-time, ideologically antithetical, sworn enemy... who, despite 12 years of trying, was also incapable of attacking the US.

Got it.

See you on the other side.......
 

Well that will probably be the last time I get to make significant posts until June 6th. I had a break so I took advantage. Balt and Sidd - now wasn't that more fun than discussing some stupid rape case?

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Translation: "Grow a middle class, you fuckers, or we're comin' in!"

I love reading this stuff, Spanky. Most fun I've had on this board since we annexed Mexico.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

I hate these fragmented responses.

Yeh, our pressure was mainly political on South Africa. But, on Iran, do you really think Iran was not rapidly growing during the 70s, when the price of oil was shooting through the roof? Or that there was not a large Westernized Middle Class there at the time? Each were products of the Shah's government, which we supported, and that Middle Class was indeed looking for Westernized Democracy - but, they didn't prevail.

If you think pressure to adopt World-Bank approved economic policies doesn't carry risks in Egypt and Algeria, then you know a lot more about the area than the World Bank's economists, who are indeed worried about the political repurcussions of their policies. Indeed, it has been a huge topic of research that they have actively supported.

I happen to be a fan of policies that grow a sizable middle class (and organized working class, I'd add) as one component of encouraging Democracy. But we're smoking something if we don't think there's a lot more to it, especially in the Islamic world. My bet right now is that if successful in bringing democracy to Iraq, we will create the World's first Radical Islamic Democracy.

Iraq v. Afghanistan
 

Wrong. The debate we had earlier was whether Nixon did the right thing in choosing to overthrow a democratically elected government.

Some of us felt that one factor that should be considered was that he installed a military dictatorship who tortured and murdered many thousands of people to maintain power.

Others -- you -- felt that the only factor to consider was the macroeconomic benefits that the murderous, torturing dictator brought to the country.

As you said then:

In other words, you weren't suggesting that, from an economic perspective, we got lucky because it worked out in the end. You were saying that we did the right thing, because Chile made the wrong choice. And democracy be damned.

See you on the other side.......
 

godspeed spanky. at least you gave the donkeys a good ole fashioned ass-whupping on the way out.

speaking of [alleged] rape, it didn't take long for the blogosphere to out the accuser of those lacrosse kids, and don't it make my brown eyes duke blue.