Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing OK. Sometimes it's hard to tell around here . Now, care to address the point? If a strong democratic tradition makes us democrats, why didn't it seem to make a difference in Chile, 1973?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing But Chile has never had a strong democratic tradition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing This is debatable, and not a debate I want to get into here at the moment, because it would require doing some historical research that I don't have time for. I will say that, up until the coup, Chile was widely viewed as having a democratic tradition that rivaled much of the world - as illustrated by this quote from the report of the Senate committee that studied US intervention in the country. Quote: "Chile's history has been one of remarkable continuity in civilian, democratic rule. From independence in 1818 until the military coup d'etat of September 1973, Chile underwent only three brief interruptions of its democratic tradition. From 1932 until the overthrow of Allende in 1973, constitutional rule in Chile was unbroken. Chile defies simplistic North American stereotypes of Latin America. With more than two-thirds of its population living in cities, and a 1970 per capita GNP of $760, Chile is one of the most urbanized and industrialized countries in Latin America. Nearly all of the Chilean population is literate.... Until September 1973, Chileans brokered their demands in a bicameral parliament through a multi-party system and through a broad array of economic, trade union, and, more recently, managerial and professional associations." End quote. Fact is, the existence of long-standing history of elected civilian governance and peaceful cooperation doesn't insulate a country from authoritarianism and brutality. It helps, but under very stressful conditions, it may not be sufficient.
Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Joe, With all due respect, I have to agree with the idea that you are just swinging wildly here. You seem to have two points. 1. People are people, wherever you go. On this you have agreement. 2. The U.S. has done immoral things. On this you have agreement. However, you seem to make the leap that therefore all efforts to make the U.S. people more moral are hereby null and void because they are imperfect. You have not yet touched the big elephant in the room-- the U.S. system of government. Is it your contention that there is no moral distinction between our three branch republic and the brute power of a dictatorship? Your view seems to be closer to the neocons than you realize. Your ranting at America's faults goes far enough to suggest that a higher moral ground is simply unattainable. That implies that the sole motivating force should be brute power. Then U.S. actions that you say are based solely on "Empire" and power are consistent with your moral outlook. Lastly, you also fail to distinguish between international relations and domestic governance. You claim that US leaders sitting down with dictators makes us co-dictators. Fine, I disagree but let's move on. As to domestic governance of its people, the U.S. legal system, Constitution, elections, separation of powers, etc. is a more moral means of governance than a dictatorship that beheads the wives of political dissidents. True or false?
I think the United States made a mistake in supporting Pinochet in Chile. Although it has to be seen in context of the cold war, it was still helping a monster come to power and it was wrong for America to do it. As a South American I can tell you that there is still a lot of hatred and mistrust in South America for the US due to that mistake made over three decades ago. Now can we get back to the original question? I think the US has a responsibility not to commit attrocities. I think the best thing they can do is train the Iraqis ASAP so they can take care of the terrorists and reaccionaries on their own. Right now most Iraqis, while undertandably not happy to be occupied, are thankful that America helped them get rid of Hussein. The more they see these terrorists target other Iraqis and target people like the Red Cross, who are there to help, the more the common Iraqi will turn against the radicals and embrace America. But if the Americans try to fight fire with fire, they will fuel and bring to the surface the natural resentment that any people will naturally have against a foreign occupying force. So, I dissagree with this article. I think Americans have to understand that there will be some tragic setbacks, but it is in our best interest to hold the course, and provide security and stability to Iraq until they are ready to govern themselves. The moment we begin to act like the enemy and abandon our moral values, we lose. We may satisfy our feelings for revenge, and we may kill a few more insurgents that way, but we will lose the tenuous support among the general population, and that would be the worst thing that could happen in Iraq right now.
http://www.google.it/search?q=cache:m_p0qhHfbUkJ:www.sissco.it/attivita/sem-set-2003/relazioni/ben-ghiat.rtf+Italian+war+crimes+sissco&hl=it&ie=UTF-8 http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/eur30.htm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. You're moving the goalposts here. "Inherently" was your word. JoPa and others rightly called you on it. As for the more intersting point that democracy and morality are currently synonomous: I'm with you to a point. This assumes a near universal ideal something like: "respect for human agency and self-determination is Good." But your initial claim was particularly about America, not "democracy." And I would argue that American style democracy has very openly distanced itself from ethics and morality in ways that many European countries have not. Captialism and the worship of the free market, typical of our brand of democracy, places profit over morality. By definition, social democracies have attempted (and succeeded to varying degrees) to blend morality and democracy in much more overt ways.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. I stand by the use of the world "inherently." A democracy is inherently more moral than a dictatorship or oligarchy. JoPa never argued against this. JoPa was babbling on about the corrupting influence of American foreign policy. No it wasn't. Go back and read it. I talked about the moral superiority of the American "system," as well as of other democracies. This is all fine and has nothing to do with my original claim that the American system and other examples of democracies are morally superior. And it's a mistake to assume the ethical purity of European democracies in comparison to the U.S. While hyper-capitalism is our corrupting force, the European democracies have always been compromised by a corrupt, entrenched bureaucracy that is controlled by the elite.
Are you saying that according to the reporters most Iraqis are unhappy that America helped them get rid of Hussein? In any case, even if you were right about that point, that doesn't change my argument on this issue. It would be even more reason to refrain from commiting the attrocities because it would be even more important to try to gain their trust and to prove to them that we are there to help and not to occupy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Good points.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. In what measurement are you refering to that democracy is more moral than other system?
No. I'm saying that the reporters on the scene say that the bystanders are blaming the US, mostly, for not providing better security.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. Self-determination, freedom, and the strength of social infrastructure.
I'll buy some of this, but not all. For example, democracies are inherently more moral than tyrannies? I agree, with regard to both the abstract and the actual. However, you seem also to be implying that a political system produces (or “shapes and influences”) individuals whose moral makeup mirrors that of the system, which is clearly not true. If this is in fact what you mean, then to that extent I disagree with you. Two pieces of evidence (actually just references to evidence I can go get if you want me to): 1. We have extraordinary examples of individuals who came from oppressive, corrupt, even evil systems but are nevertheless regarded as moral benchmarks for all humanity: Ghandi, Anthony, Mandela, Douglass… 2. This isn’t limited to an extraordinary few. There’s plenty of evidence indicating that ordinary, everyday people born and raised in despotic societies can and regularly do recognize their system’s moral failings and act according to higher moral standards (or what most of us would recognize as higher moral standards). So I think it’s problematic, at best, to predict that Americans are morally superior to persons than, say, Iraqis, simply because Americans were raised in a democracy while Iraqis have lived most of their lives under a tyrant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. I'm baaaack.... OK, I think I see the problem. You're talking political systems which is emphatically not what I was referring to. I was talking about the people themselves in a given society. At least, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that this is where the problem lies. Is democracy a more moral political system than top-down authoritarianism? I think on the whole it is, which is why I'm all for its strong form and for implementing it in the economic as well as the political system (ie., some form of "democratic socialism" - cue the usual ranting and hyperventilating from the mouthbreathers who have no knowledge of socialist thought but who won't let their ignorance stand in the way of a good rant). Assuming that the people do not abdicate their responsibilities to govern themselves, having both political and economic democracy should make for a more moral political system most of the time and with possible exceptions. Still, having a democracy does not necessarily mean that the people who live in it are "more moral" than any other group, especially if the other group also lives in a democracy. It is also does not mean that a democratic society is ipso facto innoculated from acting immorally. Was the Athenian Empire more "moral " than Sparta? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not, if looked at from the perspective of an Athenian slave or a person from in a society forcibly held under Athenian imperial rule. My original point is that the people who believe that they themselves are more moral just because they happen to be American and that "America" (or, more accurately, our ruling elites) as a society is inherently incapable of acting immorally are wrong. Over and out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. Again, your binary brain is interfering with your ability to discuss this intelligently. Suppose Athens treated their slaves better than those in Sparta. Or worse. Or suppose Athens treated its imperial subjects better. Or worse. The mere fact that someone is a slave doesn't mean that fact overrides every single thing in that person's life. Within that status, there are variations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nothin' to see here. Move along. Joe, I have to nitpick with you, because your POV made this thread go so long. If all you are doing is saying "people are people", you haven't made much of a point. In fact, your original point was: There is a material difference between "inherently incapable" of immoral acts and "just as capable" of immoral acts. Its a simple and simplistic point to say it is possible an American soldier could behead a widow (people being people). It is not "just as likely" that the American soldier would do so as it is that the Baath party enforcer would.
Paging Lieutenant Calley "Start"? What the hell do you mean, "start"? What kind of fairy-tale marshmallow creampuff fantasy world are you people living in? "Start" committing atrocities? Wishful Thinking, party of EVERYBODY, your table is ready. Oh, not OUR boys. Not the fresh-faced young men we sent out to fight for freedom. Not the boys and girls we all went to school with. Not Americans. Unthinkable. Americans just don't do that kind of thing. Let me see. We've spent every year since 1979 weaning ourselves off the Russian enemy and demonizing the Muslim Arab. Then in 1990, we promote Saddam Hussein as everything up to and including the Antichrist. Then a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians take out the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Then, Bush decides (correctly) that the job wasn't done by merely fighting Afghanistan, and (incorrectly) decides Iraq is the next target, and (unforgivably) links Iraq with 9/11. Plus, thanks to Vietnam, we've developed a very, very healthy tolerance towards our military doing things that would have made Torquemada and Tamerlane say "I say, that's not cricket." For a nice, prime example of this, go back and read that thread we came up with about the Vietnam Tiger battalion. So we send upwards of 100,000 badly-trained reservists and Guardsmen to police a country which REALLY *#*#*#*#ing hates us, to fight an enemy which is about as close to the scum of the earth since Hitler opened a sun-roof in his skull - and we tell our soldiers they'll be greeted as heroes and liberators. NICE move. Plus, both sides have leadership which has made it abundantly, transparently clear what they think of international law, the Geneva convention, and other such social niceties. Oh, and both sides are, to the other, Satanic. And to put the cherry on the cupcake of death, a certain non-trivial number of people in Iraq would deserve whatever they get. Let's face it - Muslim fundamentalist terrorists aren't fighting fair. Far freaking from it. That makes two sides in this war who hold Iraqi lives extremely cheap. The problem is, since we can't be bothered to tell little brown people apart, a certain non-trivial number of comparatively innocent bystanders will get the same treatment. Wake up and smell the semtex. It's just a matter of time before what we've been doing - whatever we've been doing - comes to light. Here's another hint - we already have people pre-emptively justifying it. The only thing we don't know are the trivial little details. The only thing more embarrassing than the people pre-emptively justifying it are the people who think we just wouldn't EVER do that such an awful thing. Fine. Here, have a cookie. Mommy will be up to tuck you in, and give you the little blue blanket that keeps the monsters away. Jesus fucking Christ. I'm actually very interested in the argument about the morality of democracy versus other governmental systems (I tend to think so, given a watery definition of morality as least harmful), and whether a democracy produces a moral people than other systems (HELL, no). But I don't want us to get away from the main point, which is that everyone reading this should go to bed knowing that somewhere in Iraq, an American soldier is committing a sickening, criminal act - for you and me. Kisses!
We have several pages of arguments about whether democracy produces morally superior citizens without any discussion on what consitutes moral behavior. I'm not sure we can even agree on that much, which makes the rest somewhat pointless. Even if we can get beyond that problem, I'm still waiting for an explanation on how a typical person living in a democratic country is morally superior to a person living in an authoritarian system. Specifics please. I suspect the best we can come up with is that a person living in a democratic country is more likely to support democracy.
A typical person living in a strong democracy is less likely to rob, cheat, steal, rape, or murder than a typical person living under another form of government. They are more likely to give time and/or money to assist those less fortunate than themselves. This is my workable definition of moral behavior. But you would be hard pressed to come up with any definition of morality that is not reflected in the world's strong democracies. The reason I'm making an issue of this is that the socio-political system you live under DOES matter. It defines your outlook, morals, and actions. To assert that people are morally equivalent no matter what system they live under is politically irresponsible.
This is an absolutely critical point. As has become clear in what used to be the USSR, people who live their lives in a totalitarian state tend to lose the ability to think ethically. You can't trust your neighbors because they might be spying on you for the state, and you can't trust yourself because what is OK today might not be OK tomorrow. Crimes are so broadly defined and punishments so harsh that the society winds up in a condition of 'everything that is prohibited is permitted' or 'might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.' Consistency in negative feedback (as scientifically defined) is crucial to the development of a moral sense, and anarchy and dictatorship are two political conditions that don't allow for it. Iraq under Hussein certainly fits most definitions of a totalitarian dictatorship. I believe that 30 years of Saddam Hussein has rendered Iraqis incapable of democracy in the near term. I don't see them becoming capable if the transition situation is mostly anarchy and/or foreign military occupation over the next several years. On another issue raised in this thread, there is at least one Saddam-esque dictator that the US government is quite happy to support. If you google Karimov of Uzbekistan you will find that most people (but not the US Government) regard him as a far greater threat to his own people than a help to anyone else. However, he provided significant support to the war in Afghanistan--mostly because he has his own Islamic insurgency that he's trying to crush.
You think the murder rate is higher in, say, Libya than in the USA? Saudi Arabia? I don't think so. Evidence?
This is the problem of continually shifting the focus from individuals to societies to international relations. It is obviously quite possible that Random Joe Lunchpail is less moral than Random Rahim Baathist. It's also quite possible that when you turn him into Random Joe Marine and place him in harms way, he may react in ways that are something less than dignified. The larger point is that a nation that has democratic principles and rule of law is less likely to have the government behead the wife of a political dissident than an autocratic regime. I could be wrong on this, but I do recall seeing recent pictures of an intact Tipper Gore. As a result, the society as a whole is less likely to tolerate the act of beheading Mr. Moseley-and/or-Braun. It is a gross overstatement to say that the possibility of atrocities by U.S. soldiers puts the U.S. forces on a moral equivalence with the former Baathists, and that is the premise that you are being asked to agree with. If we see prime-time footage of some Marines hacking off the head of one of Saddam's wives, I'll retract.