En attendant Bloomberg.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Um. Yes. I do think they would hesitate to use them. Just as every other country (except us) that has gotten has. I also think that in your world, where we are invading 2/3 of the countries of the world, they are going to be vastly more determined to get nuclear weapons.

2/3 of the world? If you are going to argue with me, please read my posts.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Didn't it take the coming of the Olympics to bring something resembling real democracy to S Korea? We did a poor job of supporting democracy there for 40 years; altho we did do a good job of preventing them from turning communist.

Some political scientist, whose name I can't remember, put out a book some time ago that showed that if a country reaches a certain per capita GDP it goes democratic (as long as the country did not reach that per capita GDP through the government distributing oil wealth). I am pretty sure so far his theory has been 100%. How many sociological or ecomomic trends do you know that have a 100% consistency among all nations. Koreas economy was growing rapidly and when it surpassed that GDP per capita it went democratic.

I remember when I first read an article about this theory I tried to come up with an exception but I couldn't.

Some poorer countries turn democratic, but they often relapse and their human rights records are usually pretty poor. But at that magical point of per capita GDP the country invevitably becomes stable and human rights are generally respected.

The olympics might have helped pushed the trend along but the underlying economic trends made democracy inevitable.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you were at all familiar with how Burma has been ruled in the last five decades, you wouldn't ask that question.

This is an obnoxious post and incredibly arrogant. How do you know I don't know more about how Burma has been ruled over the past fifty years than you do? I am pretty sure of one thing. I know I have been there and I am pretty sure you have not.

In any case, I am aware of the current insurgent issues in the country right now in the outlying regions. But when Kyi was elected, her party got some huge majority of the vote (I think like eighty percent).

In any case the various ethnic groups and heroin lords may have kept up their fighting if she had been allowed to take office, but I have read nothing, or have heard of anything that would lead me to believe that the government, once deprived of power, would be able to carry on an isurgency. Just like when Marcos was deposed from power, there was no significant ground swell to support an insurgency against the new government.

When there is a dictatorship based on patronage, and no real ideology, after it falls, there is rarely any affective insurgency to try and bring it back to power.

How many examples can you cite in the last fifty years where a military government was brought down by a democratic forces and then a strong insurgency was formed to put that military government back in power? I doubt very many.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
Germany. Which fit your description before it turned into a dictartorship.

Its middle class was wiped out by inflation. Its per capita GDP was way below the threshold. And I don't think its per capita GDP ever went above the threshold, but I am not sure. I am too lazy to look it up. I don't think any country reached the threshold of per capita GDP until pretty long after WWII. Inclulding the US.

Originally posted by Adder
This doesn't become true just because you keep repeating it. We killed a lot of Germans and Japanese because they were are war with our Allies, and then they attacked us. As far as I know, no one at the time thought we were engaging on a grand ideological crusade to give them the gift of democracy.

I think many people thought we were in a grand ideological crusade against fascism and we were liberating the world from the German and Japanese yolk. And if we were not intent on changing these countries regimes why did we insist on unconditional surrender?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
How do you know you are not wrong about any moral position you take?

This is the major diconnect - your so-called moral position would conflict in many eyes with your willingness to kill 240,000,000 people. It defies common sense and offends most people's sense of morality. I suspect that killing that many with an eye to fomenting democracy would also be counter-productive, with the survivors being rather more mad at the U.S. than welcoming.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Spanky
Its middle class was wiped out by inflation. Its per capita GDP was way below the threshold. And I don't think its per capita GDP ever went above the threshold, but I am not sure. I am too lazy to look it up. I don't think any country reached the threshold of per capita GDP until pretty long after WWII. Inclulding the US.

The horribly expensive foreign policy goals that Bush, you, and like-minded individuals wish to pursue you will wipe squeeze the US middle class with inflation by running massive deficits that depress the dollar and increase the costs of imports and borrowing. The UK used to think it could say the pound was strong, and eventually Soros and other traders broke the pound.

If nothing else does, inflation will eventually force the democrat and republican parties to boot the elite idealists that want to pursue suicidal policies of massive twin budget and trade deficits.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
... liberating the world from the German and Japanese yolk.

Damn, I hate it when they make my cannibal omelettes with only the egg-whites. Loses all the good Kraut and Nip flavor.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Who the fuck declared you (or the US) God? Where do you derive the moral authority for us to decide what is best for other nations? I know that you are fond of saying that people in countries run by dictators and countries without a functional demoratic form of government are unable to choose for themselves.

But how does your making decisions for them and enforcing them through military power differ from the status quo? Who in Myanmar has called you up and said "hello, the people of Myanmar would like you to send soldiers and planes and kill all the soldiers here and as many of us civilians ass needed to install a regime chosen by you?"

Do you really not see the anti-democratic arrogance of your position? Or do you not care, and justify your despotic ambitions as being "good for the people?" Is this the new "White Man's Burden?"

When are you allowed to play God, as you describe it? It seems your definition of playing God is that you know what is better for some other people and then acting on it. If you see a man being beaten and you step in to stop it, are you playing God? When the Serbs were ethnically cleansing Kosovo weren't we "playing God" when we stepped in to prevent it? We didn't ask the Kosovars if they need our help, and they didn't request it. Yet we stepped in and stopped it.

If a country started exterminating its Jewish population, would we be "playing God" if we stepped in to try and prevent it?

If the Japanese had never bombed Pearl Harbor, and Germany never declared war on us, would it have been wrong for the the US to declare war on Germany solely based on their conduct? And then would it be have been moral for us to demand an unconditional surrender from them? Was the only reason we had a right to go to war with Japan and Germany was because on attacked us and the other declared war on us.

Like I said, if we had a military coup in this country or some dictator stepped in like Hitler and took control of America I hope some other country would step in and throw them out and restore democracy. I wouldn't think they would be playing God, I think they would be doing us a favor.

If a government is democratically elected we have no right to go in. Although there may be an exception to this if the Democratically elected government starts committing genocide. But I don't know. That would definitely be a tough call. If the government of Romania decided to exterminate all the hungarians in the country, or all the jews in its country, should we step in? I think that would be a tough call for anyone on this board. If a country has a dictatorship that doesn't respect human rights, but the government has implemented policies that are creating economic growth, then I don't think we should step in. The problem will eventually fix itself, and with a much lower cost in lives. China definitely falls into this catagory as does most of the authoritarian countys in the world. But if you have an unelected government that consistently tramples on human rights and runs the economy to insure that the country is staying poor, I can't see it being wrong to step in and help those people.

I am pretty sure for you there is a point where a government takes a certain action where you believe we should step in and do something. Even if we were not asked. We just have a different opinion on what sort of action a government has to take to justify our interfering. But why is my tipping point for intervention playing God and yours not?

Would it have been morally wrong to overthrow the Taliban regime if they had not helped Osama? I do not think so, but I guess you do.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Spanky
If the Japanese had never bombed Pearl Harbor, and Germany never declared war on us, would it have been wrong for the the US to declare war on Germany solely based on their conduct? And then would it be have been moral for us to demand an unconditional surrender from them? Was the only reason we had a right to go to war with Japan and Germany was because on attacked us and the other declared war on us.

No, devastating the economies of Japan and Germany, after first letting them devastate other economies, was good for the US economy. Doing that gave the US a massive economic advantage over other countires, and is the main reason the US is far richer than the rest of the world. WWII was great for the US.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by LessinSF
This is the major diconnect - your so-called moral position would conflict in many eyes with your willingness to kill 240,000,000 people. It defies common sense and offends most people's sense of morality. I suspect that killing that many with an eye to fomenting democracy would also be counter-productive, with the survivors being rather more mad at the U.S. than welcoming.

If every country on this planet was a first world country with a stable democracy that respected human rights, that would solve most of the worlds problems. That would mean an end to war, and end to population growth, it would be better for the environment, it would end starvation and end real poverty.

I think the world will eventually get to that point, but I think until we get there many more than 240,000,000 people will die because of the problems that would be solved if that change occured now. All the people that will die of disease and hunger (because they live in impovershed countries), and by their countries policies (or mismangement), and from wars will greatly exceed 240,000,000 before we reach that point. In addition, there will be massive damage to the worlds environment before we reach that point. And my guess is that at some point some of these undeveloped countries are going to use some WMDs on populaton centers that will cause massive deaths. So in the end, making that trade would save lives. Let alone stopping all the misery caused by human rights abuses, human slave travicking, overpopulatoin etc.

Of course, it is a rather absurd discussion because we are discussing something that is not an option. Right now the impediments for having a world economy that is developed are governments that implement policies that prevent growth. Most of these same government are heinous and committ massive human rights abuses, i.e Burma, North Korea, Cuba and Byelorussia. Outside of Subsaharan Africa I can't thinkof any others except for maybe Syria and Libya. I am not sure if those countries are growing or not.

We can't do anything about Belarus (because Russia wouldn't allow it) and we can't do anything about North Korea (because it would cost way too many lives). But Burma and Cuba we could do something about. And who knows, maybe with Castro gone maybe Cuba will fix itself.

Subsaharan Africa is a tough call because I am not sure for any of the countries we invaded there, we could find a government to replace the one we ousted that would be any better than the one we replaced.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
How do you know you are not wrong about any moral position you take?

That is my point. You don't.

You think world consensus is always right?

Nope. But at least it has the potential to change and learn from its mistakes.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
2/3 of the world? If you are going to argue with me, please read my posts.

My apologies, but I didn't know that hyperbole wasn't allowed here.

But you want to start counting countries? 'Cause there are a lot of them in sub-Saharan Africa. And while you left them out, all of the countries North of the Sahara also fit your criteria.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
But at that magical point of per capita GDP the country invevitably becomes stable and human rights are generally respected.

.

So you base your entire moral crusade on magic?

Tell me, was there history before 1900?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
My apologies, but I didn't know that hyperbole wasn't allowed here.

But you want to start counting countries? 'Cause there are a lot of them in sub-Saharan Africa. And while you left them out, all of the countries North of the Sahara also fit your criteria.

Morocco and Algeria are not growing economically? Same with Tunisia? I am pretty sure the Egyptian economy is growing.

The only countries that I am pretty sure are not growing (outside of Subsaharan Africa) are Cuba, North Korea, Burma and Belarus.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
If every country on this planet was a first world country with a stable democracy that respected human rights, that would solve most of the worlds problems. That would mean an end to war, and end to population growth, it would be better for the environment, it would end starvation and end real poverty.

You say this as though you think someone disagrees with you. No one does.

But we (or at least me) can't really believe that you think you can make a country a stable democracy that respects human rights by force.

And my guess is that at some point some of these undeveloped countries are going to use some WMDs on populaton centers that will cause massive deaths.

Why? What makes today's undeveloped countries different than yesterdays?

Of course, it is a rather absurd discussion because we are discussing something that is not an option.

Um. That is what everyone else has been saying.