Middle East erupts

[Griff]

I knew I was making a mess but I wrote it anyway.

[9th Engineer]

Just keep in mind that once they come into OUR culture they have to abide by our rules.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Depends on what the topic under discussion is.

And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.

So why is everyone trying so hard to make one in this country?

[DanaC]

Just keep in mind that once they come into OUR culture they have to abide by our rules.

Agreed. But the main thrust of this thread has turned into the merits of transplanting (by force if necessary) western democratic cultures into other nation states.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by richlevy

So why is everyone trying so hard to make one in this country?

Because the problem with being a liberal lately is after a while you start to beleive your own hyperbole. I still don't think it's a winning strategy.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Agreed. But the main thrust of this thread has turned into the merits of transplanting (by force if necessary) western democratic cultures into other nation states.

I thought the last time this went around, the Sin of the West was tolerating dictators?

[DanaC]

I thought the last time this went around, the Sin of the West was tolerating dictators?

To which dictator are you referring?

[JayMcGee]

perm any one of ten backed by the CIA /NSA over past 3 decades...

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

To which dictator are you referring?

All of them...quite a list, really. The Shah of Iran comes to mind first. Then there's Saddam. A whole raft of them who were thought "better than Communisim" at the time, including a fair number in South America. How about the Saudi royals? We kept hearing that a "root cause" of islamofascistic terrorism is the Western-supported "oppressive regimes" so many live under.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Depends on what the topic under discussion is.

And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.

One doesn't have to be a benevolent dictator to be a communist. A communist isn't a leader. A communist is a person who works for the good of the whole society. A benevolent dictator is not a communist. A benevolent dictator is a benevolent dictator.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Alright. explain to me why what I said was incorrect.

I didn't say it was "incorrect". But I am rather reminded of Wolfgang Pauli, who once said "That theory is so worthless, it isn't even wrong."

Are you then so paralyzed by guilt over your ignorance of a culture that you can't evaluate it at all? Are you allowed to have an opinion about, say, female genital mutiliation? Remeber, it occurs in a culture you don't understand fully, so I guess the jury's still out on that one. Or do you judge it partially, rather than fully? If so..what does that mean?

And what cultures *do* you understand fully? Are you sure? I mean, there's something you might have missed. :-)

The whole spiel just seemed to be soaked in such a no-fault relativism that it could find an excuse for anything it wanted to.

I'd like to recommend Richard Mitchell's writings to you.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

One doesn't have to be a benevolent dictator to be a communist.

Did somebody say that?

Originally Posted by Aliantha

A communist is a person who works for the good of the whole society.

That's certainly debatable.

[Aliantha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Even being a communist doesn't make you wrong...

MaggieL said:
Depends on what the topic under discussion is.

And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.

I'd say you inferred it. Prior to your post, no one had mentioned benevolent dictators.

As to your second response, I don't think it's debatable at all. If you're not working for the good of the whole society you're not a communist, and that's the end of it. Certainly, many 'communist' societies and their structure can be argued as to whether they are in fact true communist societies, but definitely not the basic tenet of communism.

[9th Engineer]

Remember that the good of society is different than the good of all individuals. Many communist idealists end up fighting the individuals they are trying to help in order to protect a construct. Society is not something that exists outside of people, it isn't something higher or greater than the sum worth of the people it consists of either. So to say that people are working for the good of society is impossible, you can only work for the good of people.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well said, Engineer.

The essential property of a "benevolent dictatorship" seems to be that it doesn't care to single out a group or groups for oppression, which is one good way to keep coup attempts from developing momentum. There is nothing in dictatorship to keep one benevolent, though.

So why is everyone trying so hard to make one in this country?

Rich, the only people who believe we are are habitants of the fever swamps of conspiracy theory. We are not remotely trying to do that; we remain in the American habit of making power limited in scope and in time. GWB will finish two terms of a Presidency better than his opposition will ever give him credit for, though objective historians will, and pass along.

This is the kind of thing out of you that gives me the Mario Cuomo flashbacks I've mentioned before.