En attendant Bloomberg.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
So you base your entire moral crusade on magic?

Tell me, was there history before 1900?

? - Yes there was history before 1900 but there was not country on the planet before 1900 whose GDP per capita was even close to the per capita GDP of any of the first world countries of today.

Also before 1900, unsurprisingly, there weren't that many democracies.

Are you telling me there is no connection between prosperity, democracy and a respect for humann rights?

[Adder]

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

None of them are meaningful democracies (least of all Egypt). And like any country, they all experience periods of not growing.

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

Um.. really? Japan, for example? You do am amazing job of squeezing the facts into your theories.

Edited to clarify my depiction of the north african governments.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
? - Yes there was history before 1900 but there was not country on the planet before 1900 whose GDP per capita was even close to the per capita GDP of any of the first world countries of today.

Also before 1900, unsurprisingly, there weren't that many democracies.

Are you telling me there is no connection between prosperity, democracy and a respect for humann rights?

I am saying you are diving moral truth from a shockingly short period of human history.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
That is my point. You don't.

So it may have been wrong for us to defend ourselves after being attacked after Pearl Harbor. We can't be sure? Ghandi argued that using violence is always wrong. Even when attacked. So following your logic every military action the US has ever taken may have been unethical.

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

How can you learn anything when you never know if you are right or wrong. Following your logic we will never know what is right or what is wrong.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I am saying you are diving moral truth from a shockingly short period of human history.

That doesn't make sense. You are making straw man arguments. When a country reaches a certain level of per capita GNP (without the help of oil revenues) that country will inevitably turn into a Democratic Republic with a general respect for human rights. Am I wrong? Can you give me an example of a country today that is developed that doesn't follow that rule?

I think it is better when people live in a prosperous society, and live under the jurisdiction of a government that respects human rights and allows the people to choose their government, and there is no moral uncertainty in that statement. Do you disagree?

Therefore, it is good for the world and good for the US if all the countries of the world are prospering (growing economically). Am I wrong?

Therefore, it is in the interest of the US population that the US government tries to encourage economic growth in all countries on the planet. Am I wrong?

Genocide is wrong. I can say that with moral certainty. Do you disagree?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
None of them are meaningful democracies (least of all Egypt).

Your point being? Like I said before, I don't think we shold intervene where a country is not a democracy but it is growing.

Originally posted by Adder
And like any country, they all experience periods of not growing.

Yes, all countries experience the business cycle. But the question is, over extended periods of time are they going to grow? and has the government adopted policies that will allow that growth to continue?

Originally posted by Adder
Um.. really? Japan, for example? You do am amazing job of squeezing the facts into your theories.

Are you saying Japan is not first world country? Are you saying it is not a stable democratic republic that has general respect for human rights? Japan was already developed when its economy stagnated. And it didn't contract, or at least contract enough to lower its per capita GNP back below the threshold. And now it is growing again. It still has one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world.

And it isn't my theory. And squeezing facts to fit my theories? Most social or economic trends are considered legitimate if they have a seventy or eighty percent rate. This one is close to a hundred percent if not a hundred percent. Even if only eighty percent of first world countries were Democratic and respected human rights we should try and encourage countries to develop. But I am still waiting for you to come up with a first world country, whose wealth is not based on oil revenue, that is not a democracy that respects human rights.

To disprove the theory you would need to come up with at least ten. But you can't even come up with one.

[bling trade]

Originally posted by Spanky
How can you learn anything when you never know if you are right or wrong. Following your logic we will never know what is right or what is wrong.

Right and wrong are defined by reference to how native speakers use the words. Anything else is personal preference. I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe in promoting democracy, even though that is against the economic interest of the US.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
I am saying you are diving moral truth from a shockingly short period of human history.

I like this.

I'm quoting you verbatim the next time some "greenie" asshole brings up some [usually scientifically wrong] "moral truth" about global warming.

[SlaveNoMore]

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.

Killing 240MM people would be good for the environment. Haven't you read the memo?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you are going to argue with me, please read my posts.

Now that's funny.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about a military intervention, the problem being that democratic forces in Burma are not strong enough to bring down the military. When democratic forces are strong enough to bring down a dictatorship, they're strong enough to stay in power. But if they're weak enough to need foreign assistance to take power, then they'll be weak after that. And we don't need to talk about an insurgency -- the problem is a military coup. As you must know, the military has been ruling Burma since the 1960s.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Spanky
Genocide is wrong. I can say that with moral certainty. Do you disagree?

I can say that you are wrong within the construct of your own moral code.

Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." In order to achieve your goals, what difference does it make if we kill 240MM across a wide cross-section of groups or if we wipe certain groups entirely out, like, say, anti-democratic theocratic groups like Wahabbis? Where does this idea that its somehow worse to kill all of an Amazon tribe than just some of an Amazon tribe come from? If Saddam were killing fewer Kurds but a lot more Shia, would you have felt less justified to invade?

As an aside, I was surprised to see political and cultural groups included in the definition. The Nazis were a political group. Al Queda is both a political and cultural group, yet we are doing our damnedest to exterminate them. I guess, by definition, the U.S. is engaged in genocide.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When democratic forces are strong enough to bring down a dictatorship, they're strong enough to stay in power.

Where did you get this? Why do you make that assumption? Democratic foreces pushed out a dicatorship in Pakistan, and yet there was a another coup later. Same is true with Spain, Argentina, Chile, and Turkey . Until recently, Latin America history was littered with civilian and military governments constantly changing places.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But if they're weak enough to need foreign assistance to take power, then they'll be weak after that.

Again. Where do you get this? Many people that have overthrown either military governments or dictatorships that use the military to stay in power have had varying levels of assistance and yet these Democratic forces have survived. We overthrow Hitler, a dictator never came back to Germany. We overthrew Tojo, and the military never camed back to power in Japan. Marcos used the military to stay in power, yet there was not another coup after we helped Aquino to throw him out.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And we don't need to talk about an insurgency -- the problem is a military coup. As you must know, the military has been ruling Burma
since the 1960s.

Again, just because we help overthrow the military does not mean it will necessarily come back. And if the country pushes the military out of power on its own does not mean there won't be another coup.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I can say that you are wrong within the construct of your own moral code.


Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." In order to achieve your goals, what difference does it make if we kill 240MM across a wide cross-section of groups or if we wipe certain groups entirely out, like, say, anti-democratic theocratic groups like Wahabbis? Where does this idea that its somehow worse to kill all of an Amazon tribe than just some of an Amazon tribe come from? If Saddam were killing fewer Kurds but a lot more Shia, would you have felt less justified to invade?

You are leaving out intent. And you are a lawyer. In other words any mass killling of people is considered the same as Genocide? That is not true. Genocide is the intentional killing of an entire racial or ethnic group just because they are that ethnic or racial group. Like with murder, manslaughter or non criminal homicide, intent is a factor. When we invade a country to get rid of the dictator our intent is not to kill lots of people, our intent is to get rid of the dictator.

Originally posted by LessinSF As an aside, I was surprised to see political and cultural groups included in the definition. The Nazis were a political group. Al Queda is both a political and cultural group, yet we are doing our damnedest to exterminate them. I guess, by definition, the U.S. is engaged in genocide.

I don't remember calling the systematic elimination of a political group as Genoide. If I did I was wrong. But again, the systematic elilmination of a political group, just because they are that political group is wrong. Unless of course, everyone by joining that political group, has committed themselves to killing every westerner they can. Then I don't see a problem with wiping out that political group.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Where did you get this? Why do you make that assumption? Democratic foreces pushed out a dicatorship in Pakistan, and yet there was a another coup later. Same is true with Spain, Argentina, Chile, and Turkey . Until recently, Latin America history was littered with civilian and military governments constantly changing places.

It actually was your point, and I was just agreeing with you not to be disagreeable. I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of things here, but since you've now come down squarely on both sides of this one, no matter what I say I'll both be on your side and against you, so it doesn't really matter.

Again. Where do you get this? Many people that have overthrown either military governments or dictatorships that use the military to stay in power have had varying levels of assistance and yet these Democratic forces have survived. We overthrow Hitler, a dictator never came back to Germany. We overthrew Tojo, and the military never camed back to power in Japan. Marcos used the military to stay in power, yet there was not another coup after we helped Aquino to throw him out.

You're missing my point when you talk about governments we overthrew. I'm talking about organic democracy movements. And we didn't do that much to help Aquino.

Again, just because we help overthrow the military does not mean it will necessarily come back. And if the country pushes the military out of power on its own does not mean there won't be another coup.

You were assuming that if we install a new government in Burma, the military won't just stage another coup again. Or maybe you weren't, but if that's going to happen, then why would we intervene? Whatever change we would bring would be futile.