Print Page | Close Window

The Friendly dictators

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13107
Printed Date: 20-May-2024 at 21:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The Friendly dictators
Posted By: Moustafa Pasha
Subject: The Friendly dictators
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2006 at 12:36
America's foreign policy in the past as well as in the present has ruled a large portion of the world by proxy by supporting and relying on friendly dictators. Attacched is a short list of dictators listed by region, who at one time or another supported Americican policy throughout the world.
 
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html - http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html
 
A new addition of ommited persons;:General Pervez Musharaff of Pakistan,General Hosni Mubarak of Egypt,King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia,President Hamid Karzai of Ahghannistan.
 
Please add more if you can!!
 
The following is a more complete list :
 
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html - http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2006 at 13:29
It lists Turgut Ozal as well
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/EurMEast.html - http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/EurMEast.html

Was he a dictator?


Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 00:23
There is nothing wrong with the USA supporting friendly dictators.  Many dictators are fair rulers and if they support American policy then we (the USA) should support them as well, particularly in the global struggle against communism.


Posted By: Gloval
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 01:13
You're funny.

-------------
You don't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun.


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 02:48
Originally posted by R_AK47

There is nothing wrong with the USA supporting friendly dictators.  Many dictators are fair rulers and if they support American policy then we (the USA) should support them as well, particularly in the global struggle against communism.

You are like a sum of all things I hate, R_AK47.


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 04:10
Originally posted by R_AK47

There is nothing wrong with the USA supporting friendly dictators.  Many dictators are fair rulers and if they support American policy then we (the USA) should support them as well, particularly in the global struggle against communism.
 
I thought that was supposed to be the global struggle for democracy.
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 11:38
Originally posted by barish


You are like a sum of all things I hate, R_AK47.
 
LOL


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 12:45
Originally posted by R_AK47

There is nothing wrong with the USA supporting friendly dictators.  Many dictators are fair rulers and if they support American policy then we (the USA) should support them as well, particularly in the global struggle against communism.
 
So if the EU or Russia of China decided to forcibly overthrow the American government and put a friendly dictator there who would make sure all profits in the country went to them instead of the American people, while ruthlessly killing and torturing all those who disagree with him, this would of course be totally ok with you...
 
Do you even know the meaning of the word Dictator?Dead


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 16:42
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

 
So if the EU or Russia of China decided to forcibly overthrow the American government and put a friendly dictator there who would make sure all profits in the country went to them instead of the American people, while ruthlessly killing and torturing all those who disagree with him, this would of course be totally ok with you...
 
 
No it would not be "totally ok", because that would obviously not be supporting American policy or be of benefit to the American people.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 16:51

So the US can do this to others and this is fair, but it cannot be dont to the US because that would not be fair? Interesting morality. 'Friendly' dictators are friendly to the US, not to the people. Hell, Saddam was a 'friendly' dictator once. Sure must be comforting to think the US payed for the guns their soldiers are shot with.



-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2006 at 22:48
Im not at all patriotic, and theres alot of things I hate about US foreign policy, but supporting dictators isnt one of them.  Its one of our better ideas.  First of all Im not a fan of democracy anymore so I dont have the principle of dictator hating.  How is tyrany of one man worse than tyrany of the majority of men?
 
Dictators, like democratically elected rulers, can be both good and bad.  Right now my favorite person in all the world is a dictator...th eKing of Morrocco. 
 
Also, look at Iraq, they were better under a dictator.  A secular non religious psycho dictator who was removed by the US and look what happened, an upswing in radical religious extremism! 
 
Supproting dictators worked against other ideologies int he past, now we should support dictators that are secular.  You probably have more rights in such a government than a religious democracy.


-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2006 at 01:49
Originally posted by bg_turk

It lists Turgut Ozal as well. Was he a dictator?

Although I hate him probably more than anyone else, I don't think Turgut Özal can be considered as a dictator.

However it is well-known that he was an American puppet.
    

-------------


Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 15:06
Originally posted by Tobodai

How is tyrany of one man worse than tyrany of the majority of men?
 
 
I agree.


Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2006 at 15:14
You probably have more rights in such a government than a religious democracy.
 
Like?


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 04:14
Originally posted by Mortaza

You probably have more rights in such a government than a religious democracy.
 
Like?
 
Yes, Like?
I would like to hear an example of a form of non-democratic government where the peoples freedom of speech is not affected, and where peope can voice their objections towards the government without negative consequence.
 
Besides, It is not logical to compare secular dictators with religious democracies. It would make more sense to compare secular dictators with secular democracies, because these are far more common.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 04:20
Originally posted by Tobodai

Supproting dictators worked against other ideologies int he past, now we should support dictators that are secular.  You probably have more rights in such a government than a religious democracy.

Saddam was a rather secular dictator.

I don't see how he was better than religious extremists.


    

-------------


Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 04:40
What's a religious democracy? As much as I concern you can't have theocratical democracies.

-------------
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 05:21
Ozal, a dictator?LOLWe were calling him "the bear of Ankara" and we even marched through Ankara when he didn't consider miner rights.Ah the old days...

If he was a dictator, he would have stopped us.

The list seems silly to me.

Turgut Ozal was elected prime minister of Turkey in 1983, after several years of harsh military rule. But while free expression in Turkey has opened up somewhat in recent years, torture and long prison terms for political opponents and government critics have remained a way of life. In 1988, according to Amnesty International, "thousands of people were imprisoned for political reasons...and the use of torture continued to be widespread and systematic". Turkey's torturers are ruthless. Says one victim: " I loosened the blindfold and looked around. The scene was horrific. People were piled up in the corridor waiting their turn to be tortured. Ten people were being led, blindfolded and naked, up and down the corridor and were being beaten to force them to sing reactionary marches. Others, incapable of standing, were tied to hot radiator pipes. A man was forced to watch while his children were tortured." Regardless of the repression that a succession of governments have subjected the country to, US-Turkish relations remain cordial. In the past, US officials have even attributed the torture problem to "the violent nature of the Turkish people." Retired Turkish General Turgut Sunalp explains it a different way. "There has been, still is, and will be torture in Turkey because there is torture everywhere in the world," he said. But despite its human rights abuses, Turkey can do no wrong in US eyes, for it is one of the CIA's key listening posts on the Soviet border. Not surprisingly, in 1987, Turkey was the third largest recipient of U.S. aid.

Oops.When did all these happen?


-------------


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2006 at 07:12
dic·ta·tor    https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fdictator">Audio pronunciation of "dictator" ( P )   http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html - Pronunciation Key   (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.
    1. An absolute ruler.
    2. A tyrant; a despot.
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
 

dictator

n 1: a speaker who dictates to a secretary or a recording machine 2: a ruler who is unconstrained by law [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=potentate - potentate ] 3: a person behaves in an tyrannical manner; "my boss is a dictator who makes everyone work overtime" [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authoritarian - authoritarian ]

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
 
No such thing as 'friendly' dictator
 


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 00:27
I said I would prefer a dictator to a religious democracy, I didnt say dictatorship was the best form of government.  Idealists are dangerous because they can only see two sides to any issue.  Black and white, dictatorship and democracy.  Wow how simple the world must seem from such a perspective.  My ideal form of government is an Oligrachic republic, see Venice.  And dont proceed to nitpick, Im not such a fool as to think any system is devoid of massive flaws, theres bad and theres worse.
 
I definately do think the Iraqis were far better off under Saddam Hussein then they are now, or will be when the crazy fanatics take over.  They had running water, they had electricity, already that was better. 
 
Religious theocracies and democracies coexist wherever the majority of people are religious and can vote.  See America.  The brilliance of our system is that there is a seperation of powers, that is essential.  However it is part of the myth and religion of democracy that seperation of powers only occurs in democracies, the Venetians did it alot better and where around far longer.  Also democracies self-replenish, which means they cannot easily fall when they become corrupt and stagnant, which almost necessitiates violent overthrown for a society to keep from falling.


-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 05:10
America is, for all purposes, an oligarchy. And Bush jr. is all the proof one could ever possibly need to see that birth and money are very bad criteria for leadership indeed.

-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 06:04

I disagree, George Bush was elected by the american people with democratic elections. We maybe don't like him, but the majority of the american citizens choosed him as president.



-------------
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 06:21
that first election was a little dodgy to say the least, Giannis. it was the judges that decided

the second was more sound.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 06:26
Originally posted by Giannis

I disagree, George Bush was elected by the american people with democratic elections. We maybe don't like him, but the majority of the american citizens choosed him as president.

 
Yes, but my point is that only people from senatorial families and people with lots of money make any chance of ever becoming candidate. If Bush sr. had not been president, I very much doubt his son would have gotten any votes at all. Poor people don't seem to stand a chance to get anywhere in politics there, nor people from less grand families. That's a oligarchy: when only people from a certain group have political power.
 
And those first election were very dodgy... There were lost of stories of people being banned from voting without proper reasons and of voting billiets being made too complicated on purpose to confuse poor democratic voters. They might not be all true, but some probably are.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 06:44
Well it maybe ''dodgy'', but if people really wanted, they could change him, for example, I can't remember which year, in a past turkish election 80% of the parliament was newly elected people. Turkey done it once, every democratic counrty can do it.

-------------
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 06:52
In this case I think there are two aspects of democracy, that get easily confused. In a true democracy:
a) everybody is able to choose their leaders
b) everybody has a reasonable chance to be elected
A is the case in the US (more or less, regarding all the irregularities) but b definately isn't. Therefore the US is not as democratic as several other countries.


Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 07:12
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

In this case I think there are two aspects of democracy, that get easily confused. In a true democracy:
a) everybody is able to choose their leaders
b) everybody has a reasonable chance to be elected
A is the case in the US (more or less, regarding all the irregularities) but b definately isn't. Therefore the US is not as democratic as several other countries.
 
The USA constitution doesn't agree with you.
 
Article 1, Section 1
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
 
Article 1, Section 3
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
 
Article 2, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
 
 


-------------
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 09:19

In theory, yes, America is a democracy. my point is, that in practice, it is not. Can you name one American president who did not come from a very rich and influential family?



-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Giannis
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 09:33

No, but I can name you numerous candidates who didn't come from a rich and influential families.

People, feel more safe to vote for a person who can recognize and that he has some fortune. They, believe that if he can manage his factory, well then maybe he can manage the country too.
 
But, that doesn't make the system oligarchic. The people votes, the people has the chance to change everything.
 
 


-------------
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 09:54
And those first election were very dodgy... There were lost of stories of people being banned from voting without proper reasons and of voting billiets being made too complicated on purpose to confuse poor democratic voters. They might not be all true, but some probably are.

I heard that happened in the second too.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 16:39
A recount was supposed to take place due to lost ballots and all sorts of strange things happening out in Florida. War broke out instead. Im still not too sure on why the recount never happend though.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 16:42
Originally posted by Giannis

 
The USA constitution doesn't agree with you.
 
Article 1, Section 1
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
 
Article 1, Section 3
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
 
Article 2, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. 
That's not what I meant. It's not unreasonable to bar children or foreigners from being elected. What I mean is that the vast majority of the people who are legally allowed to be elected, won't have the slightest chance to get actually elected. And that's not democratic. Of course to a certain extent that is true for all elective democracies, but in the United States it's stronger than in most Western European countries.
 
One may even argue that selecting leaders by lot is more democratic than selecting them by election.


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 18:39
But Bush's re-election shows the true horror of democracy, after 4 years of failure and a possibly fake original election the average joe america actually voted this guy in for a second term!  They saw the failure and decided it was not as important as preventing same gender mairriages.  Its nonsensical, and non sensical things happen when  any idiot gets a say in politics.
 
Personal privacy and democracy are completely incompatable because the will of the people is always trite and conformist.  The current King of Morrocco is a far more benevolent ruler than most elected ones.  Look at freedoms and rights granted in the US, they are usually made by the oligarchic courts and then the backlash comes from the populace. 
 
All those senators are idiots because they dont need to earn their position, instead they pander to the lowest common denominator: the people.


-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Gloval
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2006 at 20:29
Brezhnev would be proud to find a rival in Bush, why the incompetence they both exude in their decisions is impressive to say the least.

I can say this about american presidents, they were once humble, but super powerdem can change that. I think maybe Carter was the last president not from a rich family, idk. Abraham lincoln however is well known for having been born dirt poor, whatever happend to modesty. Anyway, the american people don't usually vote in strange ways because they're not presented with madness. Gay marriages are just to elicit conservative support and nothing else. The whole war in Iraq was undertaken because it was easy to attack a weak iraq and presumably get away with it. There are so many things i can mention that are debilitating to our government but it's depressing to go on. All i can say is that it wasn't always like this, so maybe the american people will revert back to sanity once bush and his cronies leave the white house. I think he was being told what to do the whole time he's been around and the man can barely think for himself, he's just an image, nothing more.

Interesting to note though, individual states have all sorts of different attitudes and problems that people often neglect the national problems until it's voting time. That's what happens when you live in such a large and diverse country.

PS what can i say, this really isn't saving any face. We just all have to wait until Iraq cools down and people aren't crazy in their politics.

-------------
You don't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 01:07

But Bush's re-election shows the true horror of democracy, after 4 years of failure and a possibly fake original election the average joe america actually voted this guy in for a second term!  They saw the failure and decided it was not as important as preventing same gender mairriages.  Its nonsensical, and non sensical things happen when  any idiot gets a say in politics.

 
 
 
I would have to agree. The first time around, It seemed that the U.S mind control device ( Fox News ) appealed to the tabloid reader in middle America by focusing the nation on President Clinton's personal life rather than the amazing thing he accomplished in terms of foreign policy ( with the exception of Somalia ). I believe that cost Al Gore the election. It is a shame because although he may be a dull person, He is a smart one who had good ideas. Now he focuses on the ever growing problem of Global Warming while President Bush continues to violate peoples basic rights here and abroad. Sometimes i think that if this happend in the 60's, there would be protests and such. Now everyone is wating " Date My Mom ' on MTV. I am quite depressed at the United States current relations abroad. Anyway, enough babbling.


-------------


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2006 at 04:42
Originally posted by Tobodai

 
Personal privacy and democracy are completely incompatable because the will of the people is always trite and conformist.  The current King of Morrocco is a far more benevolent ruler than most elected ones.   
 
 
 
I wonder if all those political prisoners rotting away in sub-human conditions in prisons in Morocco agree. I very seriously doubt it.
 
Anyway, that about personal privicy is of course crap. Personal priviacy is not bigger in countries where you are not allowed to have your own thoughts, and there are plenty of European countries where personal privacy is protected and valued. In fact, I keep hearing complaints in the news here that people do not know their neighbours anymore, which is true. Mine dont spy on me. Why would they? They dont give a crap for what I'm doing.
And here, the police is still not allowed to ask for a ID unless they have a proper reason (which is only when you are breaking the law).


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2006 at 15:56
Friendly dictator?
 
Not exactly a word I'd have used to describe Saddam. Or Hitler. Or Stalin. Name me one good selfless  thing each of these did for their people? And don't tell they improved infrastructure or gave them running water because a dictator onyl does these things to win support for himself.
 
And why on earth should we alter  our views to please the yanks? Its not as if they'd do that for any of us. Since when do they hold sway of the earth?


-------------
Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2006 at 23:43
Originally posted by R_AK47

There is nothing wrong with the USA supporting friendly dictators.  Many dictators are fair rulers and if they support American policy then we (the USA) should support them as well, particularly in the global struggle against communism.
 
So you wouldn't mind then, in a hypothetical situation, if a superpower Greece decided to instate a Greek backed Military dictatorship in Washington?
 
The world can no longer be held hostage to the never-ending and regenerative fear that the American people suffer from in general.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 00:01
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

America is, for all purposes, an oligarchy. And Bush jr. is all the proof one could ever possibly need to see that birth and money are very bad criteria for leadership indeed.
 
I was thinking about this myself actually, and I wondered whether the people living in the Roman Republic in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC actually believed they were living in a democracy, certainly residents of city states in the Italica peninsula didn't (as the Social Wars show), but did residents of Rome actually believe they were?
 
My best guess would be yes, for the most part the Roman people - for better or for worse largely bought into the the quasi-altruistic Ciceronian rhetoric regarding 'our allies being attacked' and so forth (as there was very rarely inter-class violence in Rome - despite events that could be confused for it, and the poor analysis of several communist historians) that served as pretexts for war, on top of this they also bought into the rhetoric of the res publica itself being threatened (numerous Roman leaders used this as pretexts for various things).
 
But in actuality, Rome was not a democracy, and you will find very, very few Historians who will conclude that the input of the people had any real tangible effect. While the facade of elections etc were kept up, the real power lay with the landed or business owning aristocratic families and with the Senate as they wielded the apparatus of Government (as well as the Army - but the point is moot as Generals were largely Senators anyway). And it does not need to be said that the divergence in opinion was pretty minimal, even the Optimates and the Populares still believed in Elites governing things, it was just that the Optimates believed in doing it under the cover of a supposedly civically-reactive republic. The irony is of course that the majority of 'working class' (if i can use the term) Romans viewed the dissasemblage of the Republic by successive Emperors in the first century AD as a method of empowerment.
 
It is interesting to draw parralels to America, not just in the propagandistic rhetoric, but in WHO actually governs the country - I mean, look at the Reagan era, the US Government basically functioned without a Chief Executive for 8 years, things were basically run by big business interests, especially in the case of Latin American foreign policy (anyone who has studied case examples like Nicaragua will know what I'm talking about).
 
I think issues such as this highlight just why History is so important, it gives us the benefit of foresight when looking at the present because of past examples.


-------------


Posted By: bagelofdoom
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 00:37
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

In theory, yes, America is a democracy. my point is, that in practice, it is not. Can you name one American president who did not come from a very rich and influential family?



Abraham Lincoln's parent's couldn't even read.  He was born in a one room log cabin on a farm on the frontier. 

Andrew Jackson was born to Scots-Irish immigrants in backwoods South Carolina.

in more recent history, Bill Clinton's father was a traveling salesman and his stepfather owned a car dealership. 

Look at the histories of some US presidents.  Not all pulled a Kennedy or a Bush and got the job based on familial connections.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 09:20

Like Pakistan under Musharaf vs. next-door Iran under the mullah's.

Pakistan under Musharaf is currently a secular military dictatorship . . . a relatively benign one at it.  Next-door Iran is an Islamic Republic where Democracy as in "majority rule" is practiced, much to the detriment of the unprotected minority.
 
In an idealized world, non-denominational representative republic (like the US) or even with a titular monarch (like the Netherlands) are probably the most conducive to personal freedom and ecomic prosperity.  However, for much of the world, such a choice is not viable yet . . . just look at what a mess Iraq has turned into under the tutelage of "liberals mugged by reality" (Carl Rove's definition of "neoconservative") yet forgot all that mugging altogether and back in their social engineering dreamland.  For places like that, including much of middleast, the realistic choice really is between dictatorship vs. dictatorship by mullahs under the disguise of democracy.
 
Let's not forget, religious freedom was put into large scale practice only twice in world history.  The first time was under the Mongol military dictatorship, in order to rule their polyglot land empire.  The second time by the Dutch (and subsequently the rest of West), only after decades of mutual slaughter between Protestants and Catholics. 


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 09:30

The second time by the Dutch, only after decades of mutual slaughter between Protestants and Catholics. 

A war between a Catholic and a Protestant country does not automatically make a religious war. The Spanish king wanted the Dutch catholic, the Dutch wanted freedom of choice.

 
But I agree with a lot in your post. Very intelligent remarks. Thanks.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2006 at 10:20
I was referring to the Thirty-Year's War in Europe, which finally put an end to the Netherland theater Eighty-Year's War in 1648, with the treaty of Westphalia and establishment of the independent Dutch Republic, as opposed to netherland prinvinces in the Spanish Empire,  in the same year.
 
The Dutch were always ahead their time, often through learning from other people's mistakes.  It just took a lot of bloodshed to convince those in political power, like the Spanish absolutist monarchs . . . as unfortunately usually the case in human history.     


Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 00:44
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Originally posted by Tobodai

 
Personal privacy and democracy are completely incompatable because the will of the people is always trite and conformist.  The current King of Morrocco is a far more benevolent ruler than most elected ones.   
 
 
 
I wonder if all those political prisoners rotting away in sub-human conditions in prisons in Morocco agree. I very seriously doubt it.
 
 
 
What political prisoners?  Do you have proof of any political prisoners being held in Morocco?  If there are any, there are probably many good reasons why they are locked up in "sub-human" conditions.  They are criminals and enemies of the state.  What else are they supposed to do with them?


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 03:55
http://asvdh.net/english/new-petition/ - http://asvdh.net/english/new-petition/
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde29.htm - http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde29.htm
http://www.afrol.com/articles/16933 - http://www.afrol.com/articles/16933
 
 
Just google "political prisoners morocco", and you get plenty of hits.
 
No-one deserves to be treated sub-human. No-one, but you obyiously do not understand the term 'political prisoner'. A political prisoner is locked up because he differs from opinion with the government or because he opposes the government. These are people being punished for having an opinion of their own in a country that has no freedom of speech. Imagine Bush locking up all who disagree with him without proper trial. Would you accept that as normal?


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: R_AK47
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 09:16
Amnesty International is a very biased originization with information that is not to be trusted.  Most of the propaganda they dream up are complete lies.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 14:12
Originally posted by R_AK47

Amnesty International is a very biased originization with information that is not to be trusted.  Most of the propaganda they dream up are complete lies.
 
Yes, and aliens are controlling the government. Very simple is it, just living in denial.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2006 at 09:19
Leftist dictatorships call AI fascist, rightwing dictatorships call AI communist, which is the best evidence that AI is objective.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com