All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the same is true of the city of Detroit proper, DC, Atlanta, probably NYC and LA etc.

You want to scope out your own position before recommending this regime change thing.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Iran and NK are potentially more dangerous than Afghanistan. Not Iraq. If the sole criteria to invasion was how threatening the country was, then Afghanistan would probably have been on the list after Iraq, NK, and Iran.

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.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by adebisi, esq.
wow. you need help.

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
To your Singapore, South Korea, etc. I put Iran under the Shah, China, and Iraq (before its isolation in the 90s).

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.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy The approach of putting economic pressure to develop and open up simultaneously can work (see South Africa) or can have very different effects (see Iraq under Hussein, see Iran). Those economic pressures used against Egypt and Algeria could cause either or both of them to go the way of Iran.

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.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy Would $100 billion have been more effective spent in Mexico?

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).

[baltassoc]

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You had a rather different opinion about the democratically elected regime in Chile, I recall.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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.

[Spanky]

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?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky

Egypt - that is tougher because Egypt is not growing that robustly. We need to put more pressure on Egypt so it adobts better economic policies.

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
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).

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.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

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:

Allende was elected President with only 36.6% of the vote. But anyway, he decided that was a mandate to turn Chile into a Socialist state. Inflation hit 1000% a year, the economy collapsed, and tax revenue dried up. Allende decided the only way to keep the government going was nationalizing the countrys industry. This was furthering deepening the crisis so he turned to the Soviet Block for Aid (which is exactly what happened to Cuba). Nixon was faced with the choice of potentially letting Chile turn into another Cuba or support the coup. He supported the Coup. Considering that Chile could have turned into another Cuba condemning the entire country to abject poverty for generations to come, I think the call was the right one. Nixon may have been a criminal, but when it came to foreign policy he knew exactly what he was doing. He had a much better grasp international politics and strategy than all of his political enemies.

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.

[adebisi, esq.]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

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.