Languish.org

So, now that the troops are leaving we (as in the west) must decide was it a win, was it a costly win, was it a pyrrhic victory, was it a defeat that we try to pretend is a victory by withdrawing, or was the war itself so corrupt that victory was impossible.

Vote away.

Broke/fixed.  We definitely won, in that our goals were to topple Saddam and leave behind an at least partially-functioning democracy.  Whether that victory will bear long-lasting results is the question.

Quote from: Habbaku on October 22, 2011, 11:34:05 AM
Broke/fixed.  We definitely won, in that our goals were to topple Saddam and leave behind an at least partially-functioning democracy.  Whether that victory will bear long-lasting results is the question.

Pretty much what I was going to say.  We met our war goals, but it will be years until we know if what we rebuilt will stand.

Broke and kind of fixed it and now it's time for the Iraqis to be on their own again, for better or worse...

Victory. The odd rusty artillery shell with gas was dealt a fatal blow before it could make its 45 min attack.

Unquestionably a victory but yeah, very pyrrhic. Nothing really gained and quite a bit lost.

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 12:16:38 PM
Unquestionably a victory but yeah, very pyrrhic. Nothing really gained and quite a bit lost.

How can it be a victory when nothing was gained?

Quote from: citizen k on October 22, 2011, 01:11:42 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 12:16:38 PM
Unquestionably a victory but yeah, very pyrrhic. Nothing really gained and quite a bit lost.

How can it be a victory when nothing was gained?

:huh:

I voted Pyrrhic though, I'm not sure what we gained.  I'm not entirely sure what the original goal was.

Well, it showed us that the age of the superpowers has ended.  You can't argue that the US achieved what they meant to, but they also were diminished in the doing.

I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

No WMDs were found, Islamic terrorism didn't cease and the democracy-domino theory proved itself an illusion. In fact the head of the only regime that changed course since was killed by its own revolting citizens this very week.

An interesting question(to me at least) is whether the Arab spring would have resulted in a chain of events similar to Libya or Syria even if we hadn't gone in. And if it had, would that be better or worse than the occupation, given that Iraq seems to have been largely untouched by the Arab spring.

For the record I voted victory. I supported the war for the purposes of removing Saddam and co and we were successful in that.

Quote from: Iormlund on October 22, 2011, 04:03:04 PM
No WMDs were found, Islamic terrorism didn't cease and the democracy-domino theory proved itself an illusion. In fact the head of the only regime that changed course since was killed by its own revolting citizens this very week.

Tunisia and Eygpt don't count?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 22, 2011, 04:27:19 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on October 22, 2011, 04:03:04 PM
No WMDs were found, Islamic terrorism didn't cease and the democracy-domino theory proved itself an illusion. In fact the head of the only regime that changed course since was killed by its own revolting citizens this very week.

Tunisia and Eygpt don't count?

Those regimes didn't change course, they were toppled.

In any event, I'm not sure how American threats of violence contributed to the Arab Spring, except perhaps to encourage Islamists to oppose American imperialism.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 22, 2011, 04:27:19 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on October 22, 2011, 04:03:04 PM
No WMDs were found, Islamic terrorism didn't cease and the democracy-domino theory proved itself an illusion. In fact the head of the only regime that changed course since was killed by its own revolting citizens this very week.

Tunisia and Eygpt don't count?

Certainly not. High food prices and the self-immolation of a young grocery salesman have much more to do with those events, that actually toppled allied regimes.

I thought the concensus was that the Iraq war had delayed the Arab spring and it should have happened a few years back.

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 09:52:31 PM
I thought the concensus was that the Iraq war had delayed the Arab spring and it should have happened a few years back.

That's because you're an idiot.

Quote from: dps on October 22, 2011, 10:02:40 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 09:52:31 PM
I thought the concensus was that the Iraq war had delayed the Arab spring and it should have happened a few years back.

That's because you're an idiot.

What a convincing counter argument.

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 10:06:11 PM

Quote from: dps on October 22, 2011, 10:02:40 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 09:52:31 PM
I thought the concensus was that the Iraq war had delayed the Arab spring and it should have happened a few years back.

That's because you're an idiot.

What a convincing counter argument.

It wasn't an argument, it was an insult.

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 10:06:11 PM

Quote from: dps on October 22, 2011, 10:02:40 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 09:52:31 PM
I thought the concensus was that the Iraq war had delayed the Arab spring and it should have happened a few years back.

That's because you're an idiot.

What a convincing counter argument.

Your statement was an appeal to the masses, simply calling you an idiot is sufficient.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 22, 2011, 04:27:19 PM

Quote from: Iormlund on October 22, 2011, 04:03:04 PM
No WMDs were found, Islamic terrorism didn't cease and the democracy-domino theory proved itself an illusion. In fact the head of the only regime that changed course since was killed by its own revolting citizens this very week.

Tunisia and Eygpt don't count?

No.  I do remember when conservatives crowed about the Cedar Revolution as vindication of the Bush policy.  That stopped after the war between Israel and Lebanon started.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2011, 03:51:59 PM
I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

google Coalition of the Willing BEEYOTCH

Iceland is a good and loyal (also completely disarmed) ally unlike Norway under Stoltenberg (http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/pm-denies-bush-talk-ruined-relations)

Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2011, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2011, 03:51:59 PM
I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

google Coalition of the Willing BEEYOTCH

Iceland is a good and loyal (also completely disarmed) ally unlike Norway under Stoltenberg (http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/pm-denies-bush-talk-ruined-relations)

What do you mean?
Does Iceland have an army? Can you own arms in Iceland?

Quote from: Siege on October 23, 2011, 01:00:37 AM

Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2011, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2011, 03:51:59 PM
I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

google Coalition of the Willing BEEYOTCH

Iceland is a good and loyal (also completely disarmed) ally unlike Norway under Stoltenberg (http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/pm-denies-bush-talk-ruined-relations)

What do Iceland have an army? Can you own arms in Iceland?

you missed the bolded bit apparently..

Iceland does NOT have any form of military of it's own. It relies completely on NATO for its defense. Iceland does contribute to NATO and international operations by organizing personnel to participate in support roles though the Norwegian and Danish Military as well as UN peacekeeping forces.

To bear arms in iceland you need a gun license. To get the gun license you need to have about 200 US dollars, spend 3 afternoons taking a gun safety course, have a police and doctors certificate. The police issues the gun license. With that license you can get hunting rifles and shot-guns, though, if you don't actually hunt you can expect your license to be withdrawn. Pistols are not illegal, but require a special license which will almost certainly NOT be issued to anybody other than the Police Weapons squad and the security personnel of certain visiting dignitaries.

QuoteIt wasn't an argument, it was an insult.

i.e. you are in fact the idiot.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2011, 11:02:45 PM

Quote from: Tyr on October 22, 2011, 10:06:11 PM

What a convincing counter argument.

Your statement was an appeal to the masses, simply calling you an idiot is sufficient.

An appeal to the masses? What?

Quote from: Tyr on October 23, 2011, 02:21:25 AM

QuoteIt wasn't an argument, it was an insult.

i.e. you are in fact the idiot.

Sounds a lot like "I know you are but what am I?"

Quote from: Maximus on October 22, 2011, 04:26:23 PM
For the record I voted victory. I supported the war for the purposes of removing Saddam and co and we were successful in that.

:yes:

Quote from: Tyr on October 23, 2011, 02:21:25 AM


An appeal to the masses? What?

A logical fallacy.

Guys, I am as much of a supporter of American dominance as you can be without actually living there (imho, balance of power is bullshit and leads to world wars, and among the candidates, the US is by far the best option for a single superpower), but how can you possibly call Iraq a victory?

Because you defeated Saddam's military? Was that ever a question prior to the launch of the offensive? That after 5 years of Vietnam-reenaction your leaders figured out the "innovative" strategem of bribing one half of the tribals to help supress the other half?
A "democracy" which is divided among the main lines of the country? A once strong barrier in front of your biggest regional threat, Iran, now on a near-guaranteed course to become Iran's puppet? Or a counry which is supposedly independent and stable enough to see the US go, yet just this week about ten thousand Turkish soldiers raided it's Kurdish citizens?
And I won't even mention the tremendious PR loss the US suffered because of the whole campaign.

This was a victory in the strictest tactical military sense, but a disaster strategically.

Tamas, I agree with your last statement, but the Iraq War you describe wasn't at all the one I saw.  Maybe the Magyar press covered it differently than the English-language press, and that accounts for the differences in what we think went wrong.

Iraq wasn't a strong barrier in front of Iran.  The vast majority of its people are Shiite, and have a lot in common with the Shia of Iran, including a martyr complex and feeling 6that they have been historically oppressed by Sunni Muslim majority.  Saddam used the Iranians as the external enemy to unite the Sunni majority of Iraq behind him, but that whole game had long since lost whatever luster it had by 2003.  The English-language press also hasn't reported any of the signs the Magyar press has apparently reported that say Iraq is "on a near-guaranteed course to become Iran's puppet."  I suspect that your newspapers are exaggerating.  That tale has been a theme since 2003, and has proven to be a bit like the end-of-the-world prophecies. 

Turkey has launched attacks over the border into Kurdish Iraq any number of times since Saddam fell.  And yet, Iraq has become more stable, peaceful, and independent even as that occurred.  I am not sure what disaster the Magyar press claims this is creating, but since it isn't being seen outside of the Magyar press, I am not convinced it is significant.

The strategic loss to the US is that the war caused the US military and administration to take its eye off the ball, terrorism, and engage in what they thought would be a feel-good exercise of short duration.  The Bush Administration's hubris led it to bungle the chance for short duration, however, and the terrorists got a break while the US spent a trillion-plus dollars it didn't have on a war it didn't need.

The magyar press didn't really care for Iraq, the conclusions are mine based on what I read.  :hmm: Of course they exagerrated for effect a bit, but hey:

-a proper sovereign country is not allowing a neighbor launching large-scale military operations against it's citizens. Besides "getting better and better" is ain't that big an achievment when you start from what was basically anarchy outside the green zone.
-the stability of Iraq, or their prone-ness to Iranian influence cannot be properly judged while the American military is there, since all players know full well to lay low until they leave.

Also, I think Iraq was a piss-poor choice for this forceful spread of democracy thing because it would lack cohesion even if being a stable democracy. It has 3 major groups which doesnt really want to have to do anything with the other two. You cannot build a successful nation on big divides.

Perhaps you should check the English language media a bit more carefully, Grumbler.

I'm not sure how Iraq has a majority that is both Shia and Sunni.  :hmm:

Pyrrhic.

I'd say the strategic loss for the US was in blood and treasure.  The US lost a lot of front line combat troops in the last 10 years in Iraq.  Skilled, dedicated personnel are hard to replace.  The whole army is exhausted from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will take a while to increase readiness to pre-war levels.

Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2011, 08:26:58 AMThe English-language press also hasn't reported any of the signs the Magyar press has apparently reported that say Iraq is "on a near-guaranteed course to become Iran's puppet."  I suspect that your newspapers are exaggerating.  That tale has been a theme since 2003, and has proven to be a bit like the end-of-the-world prophecies. 

It's a recurring theme though and it is not unreasonable to assume that US withdrawal might strengthen the Iranian position in Iraq. Here is a recent take of the English-language press:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=2

QuoteIraqi Leader Backs Syria, With a Nudge From Iran
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and YASIR GHAZI
Published: August 12, 2011

BAGHDAD — As leaders in the Arab world and other countries condemn President Bashar al-Assad's violent crackdown on demonstrators in Syria, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq has struck a far friendlier tone, urging the protesters not to "sabotage" the state and hosting an official Syrian delegation.

Mr. Maliki's support for Mr. Assad has illustrated how much Iraq's position in the Middle East has shifted toward an axis led by Iran. And it has also aggravated the fault line between Iraq's Shiite majority, whose leaders have accepted Mr. Assad's account that Al Qaeda is behind the uprising, and the Sunni minority, whose leaders have condemned the Syrian crackdown.

"The unrest in Syria has exacerbated the old sectarian divides in Iraq because the Shiite leaders have grown close to Assad and the Sunnis identify with the people," said Joost Hiltermann, the International Crisis Group's deputy program director for the Middle East.

He added: "Maliki is very reliant on Iran for his power and Iran is backing Syria all the way. The Iranians and the Syrians were all critical to bringing him to power a year ago and keeping him in power so he finds himself in a difficult position."

[...]

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 23, 2011, 08:48:29 AM
I'm not sure how Iraq has a majority that is both Shia and Sunni.  :hmm:

He meant to type 'Sunni minority'.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2011, 08:49:52 AM
I'd say the strategic loss for the US was in blood and treasure.  The US lost a lot of front line combat troops in the last 10 years in Iraq.  Skilled, dedicated personnel are hard to replace.  The whole army is exhausted from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will take a while to increase readiness to pre-war levels.

But readiness doesn't really matter when you have nothing to do anyways, does it?

The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

The Navy is always ready, and the Air Force doesn't really get much wear and tear on personnel.

Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2011, 10:07:36 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

The Navy is always ready, and the Air Force doesn't really get much wear and tear on personnel.

Joystick blisters from driving drones?  :hmm:

Wouldn't Iraq be even more susceptible to Iranian domination if the Arab spring had arrived while Saddam still reigned?

Voted 3rd option, Pyrrhic.

Huge $ spent, little to show for it, terrible consequences diplomacy wise.

Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2011, 01:04:21 AM

Quote from: Siege on October 23, 2011, 01:00:37 AM

Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2011, 11:13:56 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2011, 03:51:59 PM
I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

google Coalition of the Willing BEEYOTCH

Iceland is a good and loyal (also completely disarmed) ally unlike Norway under Stoltenberg (http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/pm-denies-bush-talk-ruined-relations)

What do Iceland have an army? Can you own arms in Iceland?

you missed the bolded bit apparently..

Iceland does NOT have any form of military of it's own. It relies completely on NATO for its defense. Iceland does contribute to NATO and international operations by organizing personnel to participate in support roles though the Norwegian and Danish Military as well as UN peacekeeping forces.

To bear arms in iceland you need a gun license. To get the gun license you need to have about 200 US dollars, spend 3 afternoons taking a gun safety course, have a police and doctors certificate. The police issues the gun license. With that license you can get hunting rifles and shot-guns, though, if you don't actually hunt you can expect your license to be withdrawn. Pistols are not illegal, but require a special license which will almost certainly NOT be issued to anybody other than the Police Weapons squad and the security personnel of certain visiting dignitaries.

What is there to hunt in Iceland?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 23, 2011, 11:29:31 AMWhat is there to hunt in Iceland?

Mainly Ptarmigan, but also Goose and Reindeer.

Quote from: Zoupa on October 23, 2011, 11:25:39 AM
terrible consequences diplomacy wise.

Really?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2011, 08:49:52 AM
I'd say the strategic loss for the US was in blood and treasure. 

Not to be callous but in the middle of the current crisis the waste of treasure seems particularly ruinous.

QuoteWouldn't Iraq be even more susceptible to Iranian domination if the Arab spring had arrived while Saddam still reigned?

It's impossible to say but it could have been. 

Assuming the Green movement still happened I can't see the Iranians responding too well to a 'people power' uprising anywhere near them.  They like their revolutionary forces to be on a leash (Hezbullah, various Iraqi groups and, until recently, Hamas) rather than genuinely uncontrolled revolutions.  They've not really supported any of the Arab revolutions so far beyond token statements, even in Bahrain their influence was pretty limited.

I think it's more than possible that Saddam would blame the Iranians, no doubt in alliance with Israel, the US and al-Qaeda for any revolt.  That's the standard procedure for Arab tyrants.  But I think it's also popular that you'd see both the elite trying to play on sectarian differences to maintain power and, to some extent, a revolt against that from the people - Egypt's had examples of both in terms of sectarianism and the Copts.

It's also too soon to tell.  None of the Arab revolts - with the possible exception of Yemen which is an odd case - have seen a total power vacuum of the sort that happened in Iraq.  In each case the revolution either took so long that opposition forces were able to build some institutional framework (Libya) or elements of the state took over (Egypt and Tunisia).  I don't know if that would or could have happened but I think the chances of groups like the Mahdi Army or Badr Brigade emerging or the provocations to sectarian civil war would've happened.  That strengthened the sectarian identity in Iraq and played into Iran's hands.

One of the interesting things in the other revolts is their nationalism.  I wonder if these revolts will be the start of Arab nationalism tied to the states.  They all clearly draw inspiration from one another but the reference to 'nation' is the secular word not the Islamic one and the chants seem to me a step away from Nasserist Arab nationalism to a more particular form of nationalism: 'lift your head for you are an Egyptian/Libyan/Syrian.'  That could have been the dynamic in Iraq.

Personally I think it's hard to imagine a situation in which the Iranians have more influence.  They brokered the deal that created the current coalition government.  They've got intimate ties with the leadership of several major parties in Iraq, most of them in power.  I don't think that necessarily would've been the case without the war.

In my view it's a Pyrrhic victory that demonstrated that the US can overthrow third world dictators and at enormous expense, over several years build some sort of structure resembling a state.  That's it.  And even now when Iraq's out of the news the average monthly civilian death toll is somewhere between 100-150.  If you take population into account that's worse than Pakistan.

Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2011, 10:30:30 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2011, 10:07:36 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 23, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
The US military doesn't seem to have a problem finding things to do.

The Navy is always ready, and the Air Force doesn't really get much wear and tear on personnel.

Joystick blisters from driving drones?  :hmm:

We're REMF's.  Only our  SpecOps, pilots, and sometimes security police generally get in harm's way.

Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

Quote from: Tamas on October 23, 2011, 08:39:48 AM
-a proper sovereign country is not allowing a neighbor launching large-scale military operations against it's citizens.

This is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  There are, by this definition, damn few "proper sovereign" countries.  Not that anyone rally thinks Iraq is a "proper" country in pretty much any way.

Quote-the stability of Iraq, or their prone-ness to Iranian influence cannot be properly judged while the American military is there, since all players know full well to lay low until they leave.

But you have judged it anyway?  That means your judgement is, by your own assertions, not "proper."  :hmm:

QuoteAlso, I think Iraq was a piss-poor choice for this forceful spread of democracy thing because it would lack cohesion even if being a stable democracy. It has 3 major groups which doesnt really want to have to do anything with the other two. You cannot build a successful nation on big divides.

Possibly true, but not relevant.  It isn't like the Coalition won a contest and got to pick any country they wanted to invade as part of a "forceful spread of democracy."  One can certainly argue that the invasion was a mistake, but it is absurd to argue that the invasion wasn't a mistake, but that a more cohesive country should have been targeted.

Agree that you cannot build a nation on big divides, which is why Hungary should be broken up.

Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2011, 03:10:33 PM
Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

Neither.  Pax Teller-Ulam.

Still, eventually the pressure cooker will erupt.

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 23, 2011, 02:48:54 PM
We're REMF's.  Only our  SpecOps, pilots, and sometimes security police generally get in harm's way.

In the Norwegian Military Dog Handlers are part of the Air Force. And, apparently, the most popular duty for draftees.

Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2011, 12:06:07 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on October 23, 2011, 02:48:54 PM
We're REMF's.  Only our  SpecOps, pilots, and sometimes security police generally get in harm's way.

In the Norwegian Military Dog Handlers are part of the Air Force. And, apparently, the most popular duty for draftees.

Hell, I'd love being a dog handler.  But then I'd have to be a cop, and still get lucky.

The costs for the US were enormous, and it's still unclear exactly what the long-term benefits will be.  In other words, it's still too early to tell, but if I had to bet, I would go with 'not worth it'.

Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2011, 03:10:33 PM
Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

Is that Pinker? I like his argument (as reported in reviews- I haven't read his book yet) generally but think that the studies quoted are a bit mangled. It's problematic to compare the fall of Rome, with deaths occuring over a period of two centuries, with WW2 and say the fall of Rome was proportionally (given the size of the world's population) a bigger disaster.

Quote from: Gups on October 24, 2011, 06:20:47 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 23, 2011, 03:10:33 PM
Was just reading about some studies that have shown that overall global violence in the last 40 years is at a fraction of what it was at any other point in human history.

Pax Americana? Pax Western Liberalism?

Is that Pinker? I like his argument (as reported in reviews- I haven't read his book yet) generally but think that the studies quoted are a bit mangled. It's problematic to compare the fall of Rome, with deaths occuring over a period of two centuries, with WW2 and say the fall of Rome was proportionally (given the size of the world's population) a bigger disaster.

I don't really know that it is an important distinction though. The point is that overall the world is a less violent place to live, not whether one particular episode of violence was more or less a disaster than another.

I am much more bothered by what looks to me like the predisposition in the west to dismiss such results, because we seem so married to the idea that intervention is always bad, that active attempts to "spread democracy" is always going to fail, or that US power can only be defined in the negative, or at best dismissive terms. Beyond it being annoying from the standpoint of being an American with offended pride, it is stupid because it means we are actually promoting less of what is actually working.

Democracy really is better than not democracy. Iraq really is better off today than they were under Saddam. The western way of organizing society and government is objectively superior to the alternatives for the people governed, and yes, it is in fact entirely possible to use force in some cases to remove non-democratic regimes. Certainly not in all cases (of course), but there are too many examples of current, prosperous democratic countries that became that way through some form of intervention.

We can get lost in all the details, but to a great extent I think we often end up missing the forest for the trees. Iraq is a great example of this. Bush is so hated that it doesn't matter what happens in Iraq, it MUST be seen as a failure.

Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:05:09 AM
Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

They got a Burger King.

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2011, 08:13:29 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:05:09 AM
Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

They got a Burger King.

Green Zone /= Iraq

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:05:09 AM
Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

Fewer people being gassed and shot.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:05:09 AM
Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

They have a democratic and representative system.

To me the fact that the Iraqis are asking us to go and we are leaving is evidence of victory.  It is more of a victory than I could have hoped in the past few years.

Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2011, 08:31:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:05:09 AM
Iraq is better off today then it was under Saddam?  How so?

Fewer people being gassed and shot.

How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:44:14 AM
How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

You didn't ask about the war, you asked about today.  No Khurds being gassed today.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 07:57:08 AM


Democracy really is better than not democracy. Iraq really is better off today than they were under Saddam. The western way of organizing society and government is objectively superior to the alternatives for the people governed, and yes, it is in fact entirely possible to use force in some cases to remove non-democratic regimes. Certainly not in all cases (of course), but there are too many examples of current, prosperous democratic countries that became that way through some form of intervention.

See Berkut, this is your problem.  You confuse your opinion with an objective truth.  It may even be an opinion I agree with, but I can't say it's objectively true.  Take Mono, he doesn't care one way or another for Democracy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2011, 08:46:23 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:44:14 AM
How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

You didn't ask about the war, you asked about today.  No Khurds being gassed today.

No Kurds were gassed in 2002 either.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:42:17 AM
Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

This just tells me your expectations were too high.

Makes sense given what Bush and Blair were saying when the invasion was launched but I would have bet they would either be split in a vicious Civil War or under the thumb of another dictator by now.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:47:53 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 07:57:08 AM


Democracy really is better than not democracy. Iraq really is better off today than they were under Saddam. The western way of organizing society and government is objectively superior to the alternatives for the people governed, and yes, it is in fact entirely possible to use force in some cases to remove non-democratic regimes. Certainly not in all cases (of course), but there are too many examples of current, prosperous democratic countries that became that way through some form of intervention.

See Berkut, this is your problem.  You confuse your opinion with an objective truth.  It may even be an opinion I agree with, but I can't say it's objectively true.  Take Mono, he doesn't care one way or another for Democracy.

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2011, 08:49:27 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:42:17 AM
Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

This just tells me your expectations were too high.

Makes sense given what Bush and Blair were saying when the invasion was launched but I would have bet they would either be split in a vicious Civil War or under the thumb of another dictator by now.

But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2011, 08:46:23 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:44:14 AM
How do you know?  It's unknown how many people died during the Iraq war.

You didn't ask about the war, you asked about today.  No Khurds being gassed today.

indeed, they are hunted by the Turkish army now  :lol:

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM

Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

What is your contention based on then?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:56:42 AM
But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2011, 09:03:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:56:42 AM
But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

A state not having a monopoly on violence is not a mere imperfection.  It's the cornerstone of a state.  If a militia can just murder you if you vote a certain way, then the democratic government is simply theoretical rather then actual.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 09:12:53 AM
A state not having a monopoly on violence is not a mere imperfection.  It's the cornerstone of a state.  If a militia can just murder you if you vote a certain way, then the democratic government is simply theoretical rather then actual.

Well completely shutting down the militia's was unlikely to happen so I guess we were doomed to failure from the beginning.  Still I think we did pretty well under the circumstances.

Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2011, 09:03:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:56:42 AM
But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

Quote from: dps on October 24, 2011, 09:16:11 AM

Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2011, 09:03:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:56:42 AM
But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

I think we can draw a distinction between Leroy holding up a 7/11 and large private armies murdering people.  I left out the word legitimate because I don't know how the Iraqi state looks on these armies.  Does it recognize them?  Are they operating illegally and nobody can do anything about it?  Of this I'm not sure.  I do know they operate openly and use their violence freely.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:42:17 AM
Well, no.  You can't really claim that Iraq is Democracy when the state doesn't have a monopoly of violence.  Freedom House still labels them "Unfree".  They've been asking us to leave for a long time.  They were just using bombs and bullets before.

Arabs need to learn that asking nicely works on westerners, shooting at us doesn't.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 09:25:13 AM

Quote from: dps on October 24, 2011, 09:16:11 AM

Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2011, 09:03:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:56:42 AM
But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

I think we can draw a distinction between Leroy holding up a 7/11 and large private armies murdering people.  I left out the word legitimate because I don't know how the Iraqi state looks on these armies.  Does it recognize them?  Are they operating illegally and nobody can do anything about it?  Of this I'm not sure.  I do know they operate openly and use their violence freely.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Quote from: dps on October 24, 2011, 09:16:11 AM

Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2011, 09:03:55 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 08:56:42 AM
But you said they had a Democratic and representative system.  Are you saying they aren't a Democracy?  Please clarify your position.

I said they have a democratic and representative system.  You are claiming that because the situation is not perfect, as in the state does not have a monopoly on violence, then the whole thing is a failure.  I do not have such a ridiculously inflexible position.

If you take Raz's position, that the state must have a monopoly on the use of violence in order to have a democratic and representative system, then no country would qualify.  Violence by actors other than the state exists everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent.  The key is that in modern, ordered societies, the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.  But even that doesn't have anything to do with democracy--plenty of countries that obviously aren't democratic would quality.  It's more a measure of whether a state actually effectively controls its territory or not than anything else.

I think the bigger point is that it isn't a binary state. Raz wants to say "Hey, Iraq is not perfect, therefore it is not a democracy, therefore it might as well be a totalitatian dictatorship". Obviously I am paraphrasing.

The reality is that freedom and democracy are a scale, and being closer to right end than you were before is an improvement. There is no magical point at which we say "Yeah, they are just like Beligum!" and everything before that is FAIL.

This makes his kind of negativity harder of course, since it means you have to actually think about how far you've moved on the scale, and whether that movement is justified by the cost (certainly the cost in Iraq was incredible). But fundamentally, I suspect that his actual objection is largely driven by his ideological position on the actors involved. Which is my basic point, that it is troubling that we cannot get beyond the politics of it all. This is not new, of course, it has been going on basically forever, that people actively desire failure for their own "side" because the wrong people happen to be in charge at the moment of contention. It takes pretty extreme circumstances (like WW2 or something like that) to overcome that.

Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2011, 09:49:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 09:53:22 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2011, 09:49:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

A better way to look at it would be to try to figure how much worse off a state that has a reasonable level of freedom and democracy would be if it didn't have those positives, whether that state is Hong Kong or, say, Botswana.  Hong Kong is a really interesting example, because while materially they're basically in the same condition that they were before the British handed them over to China, so far they actually have a more democratic government as an autonomous region of China than they did as a British possession.  Yet, as best as I can tell, the average resident is pleased with the change.  Eastern Europa is similar--their material condition isn't hugely changed from what it was under Communism, yet even the people there who advocate a return to a centrally planned economy don't, for the most part, advocate an end to democracy (at least not publicly).

Quote from: dps on October 24, 2011, 09:47:32 AM


Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

I would say that Northern Ireland was not particularly democratic during the Troubles.

Quote from: dps on October 24, 2011, 10:17:36 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 09:53:22 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2011, 09:49:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

A better way to look at it would be to try to figure how much worse off a state that has a reasonable level of freedom and democracy would be if it didn't have those positives, whether that state is Hong Kong or, say, Botswana.  Hong Kong is a really interesting example, because while materially they're basically in the same condition that they were before the British handed them over to China, so far they actually have a more democratic government as an autonomous region of China than they did as a British possession.  Yet, as best as I can tell, the average resident is pleased with the change.  Eastern Europa is similar--their material condition isn't hugely changed from what it was under Communism, yet even the people there who advocate a return to a centrally planned economy don't, for the most part, advocate an end to democracy (at least not publicly).

Indeed, Hong Kong is one of those rare examples where the exception probably does in fact prove the rule.

It's not like anyone in Hong Kong is saying "Hey, things are pretty good, but they would be better if only the mainland Chinese treated us MORE like the regular Chinese citizens, with LESS freedom!"

And of course the list of countries that are clearly much better off for being democratic is rather long. Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Panama, the UK, etc., etc.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 09:52:17 AM


I think the bigger point is that it isn't a binary state. Raz wants to say "Hey, Iraq is not perfect, therefore it is not a democracy, therefore it might as well be a totalitatian dictatorship". Obviously I am paraphrasing.

The reality is that freedom and democracy are a scale, and being closer to right end than you were before is an improvement. There is no magical point at which we say "Yeah, they are just like Beligum!" and everything before that is FAIL.

This makes his kind of negativity harder of course, since it means you have to actually think about how far you've moved on the scale, and whether that movement is justified by the cost (certainly the cost in Iraq was incredible). But fundamentally, I suspect that his actual objection is largely driven by his ideological position on the actors involved. Which is my basic point, that it is troubling that we cannot get beyond the politics of it all. This is not new, of course, it has been going on basically forever, that people actively desire failure for their own "side" because the wrong people happen to be in charge at the moment of contention. It takes pretty extreme circumstances (like WW2 or something like that) to overcome that.

You do realize that there is a wide gap between "totalitarian dictarship and democracy", right?  Or were you creating a straw man?  All Democracies have their own imperfections.  Roving private armies is more then an imperfection.  It's a game breaker.  If you are to terrified by private armies to vote the way you want, it's not a Democracy.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 09:53:22 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2011, 09:49:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

Actually, what is your argument?  I asked what your contention is that Democracy is "Objectively" better then other governments.  As far as I could tell, it seems to be because they promote values that you believe to be good.  That seems subjective.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 10:33:07 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 09:53:22 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2011, 09:49:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

Actually, what is your argument?  I asked what your contention is that Democracy is "Objectively" better then other governments.  As far as I could tell, it seems to be because they promote values that you believe to be good.  That seems subjective.

It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

You can argue that those are subjective measures I suppose, but at that point we have no common grounds for discussion. If your argument is that the things that actually define life are not important to life, then that is just solipsism.

Which nicely illustrates my point - you would rather argue something you don't even agree with (that those things are not good measures) if that is what is necessary to hang onto your ideological perspective.

It is not subjective to say the democracy is better than not democracy based on defined criteria.

Like I've already said, you can attack my position (and I am sure some people would, like religious extremists) on the basis that those criteria are incomplete, ie that the will of god is more important than women's right to an education, hence literacy is not a good measure of overall quality of life, as an example. But that still does not make the obeservation based on the criteria specified subjective. You can measure literacy. You can measure life expectancy.

We didn't win. Victory would have meant free flowing oil everywhere, yet there is no free oil!

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2011, 03:51:59 PM
I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

:huh: It sure did for a while.  Eventually they did withdraw their soldier, though.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:42:37 AM
It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures).  :ph34r:

I call it a Pyrrhic victory as I see it now. Limited victory because of the nature of the society in Iraq which may move towards more of what it had before, or something less democratic over a shorter time frame.  The US spent so much blood and treasure, as well as lessened its already low standing in the region, and increased the divisive political discourse at home. I do feel that the US/Coalition put Iraq on a good path for progress but as I said, they could still deviate so far from that as to make what they have now nearly unrecognizable.

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2011, 03:51:59 PM
I wasn't aware Iceland participated in the Iraq war.

:huh: It sure did for a while.  Eventually they did withdraw their soldier, though.

I must point out that we did not have "a" soldier. We had some doctors a few nurses and logistics people.

Quote from: dps on October 24, 2011, 09:47:32 AM
Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

I cannot believe that even you are falling for Raz's trolls.  :lol:

You know perfectly well that he doesn't understand his own arguments, and merely tosses out crap he has read elsewhere to bait people like Berkut into responding for a round or two.

If you ignore him, he stops posting after a whine or two about being ignored.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 09:53:22 AM

Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2011, 09:49:24 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 08:55:41 AM
Some particular person caring one way or another for democracy does not disprove my contention that it is objectively true that people who live under democratic regimes are better off than people who do not.

You can argue that I am wrong by coming up with differing value systems that dismiss things like quality of life, literacy, life expectancy, etc., etc. But the fact that there are some individuals who do not value their own freedom is not a means of dismissing my argument.

Nevertheless, the Hong Kong vs. Iraq or Zimbabwe example kills your argument.  Unless perhaps you create some interesting new definition of 'better off'.

Not at all, since my argument is not that every single democracy (no matter how screwed up or how much the particulars of the situation impact the general trend) is better off for the people than every single non-democracy.

Your statement was a blanket thing.  You could insert an 'all other things being equal', and your statement would have a ring of truth, even if it was rather short-sighted.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 07:57:08 AM

We can get lost in all the details, but to a great extent I think we often end up missing the forest for the trees. Iraq is a great example of this. Bush is so hated that it doesn't matter what happens in Iraq, it MUST be seen as a failure.

I don't understand why you are whining about the 3.5% of the people here who rated the war as a failure.  That's 2 members out of 57 who voted.  Ignore 'em.

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures).  :ph34r:

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

I voted for Pyrrhic victory.  We seemed to have accomplished our mission, maybe, but the cost to us was enormous in blood, money, prestige, and diplomatic influence. 

And I don't think anyone really knows what will happen once we actually leave.  I'm still quite pessimistic about the ability of the three feuding factions to hold together long-term without any prodding from external forces.

Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2011, 12:25:07 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures).  :ph34r:

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

I can't tell in this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the truth.  Communist countries in general were actually pretty good about spreading literacy or basic medical care.  It's the more advanced stuff that they were hopeless at.

If only we had a Cuban poster to tell us how things were over there.   :homestar:

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 12:35:57 PM
I can't tell in this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the truth.  Communist countries in general were actually pretty good about spreading literacy or basic medical care.  It's the more advanced stuff that they were hopeless at.

It wouldn't astonish me; one of the early advantages of prosperity is a healthy diet, and one of the next advantages is an unhealthy diet!  :lol:

Quote from: Habbaku on October 24, 2011, 12:36:57 PM
If only we had a Cuban poster to tell us how things were over there.   :homestar:

:lmfao:

Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2011, 11:32:45 AM

Quote from: dps on October 24, 2011, 09:47:32 AM
Well, if you want to get technical about it, even in the West, the state doesn't hold a complete monopoly on the use of violence.  For example, in most jurisdictions, it's legitimate to use force (violence) to defend yourself from an illegal physical attack.  Of course, yeah, that's not your point.  I do agree that the existance of large private armies murdering people does tend to undermine the working of democracy--but then by that measure, the UK didn't have a democratic, representative government during "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland (though AFAIK, the magnitude of the problem wasn't a great).  Still, I would argue that the fact that the situation isn't perfect (and is, in fact, far from perfect) doesn't mean that they don't have a democratic system in place.  I would say that the fact that we are going to withdraw indicates that the Obama administration believes that they will be able to keep a democratic system in place without our military to back them up.

I cannot believe that even you are falling for Raz's trolls.  :lol:

You know perfectly well that he doesn't understand his own arguments, and merely tosses out crap he has read elsewhere to bait people like Berkut into responding for a round or two.

If you ignore him, he stops posting after a whine or two about being ignored.

Please stop trolling.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:42:37 AM


It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

You can argue that those are subjective measures I suppose, but at that point we have no common grounds for discussion. If your argument is that the things that actually define life are not important to life, then that is just solipsism.

Which nicely illustrates my point - you would rather argue something you don't even agree with (that those things are not good measures) if that is what is necessary to hang onto your ideological perspective.

It is not subjective to say the democracy is better than not democracy based on defined criteria.

Like I've already said, you can attack my position (and I am sure some people would, like religious extremists) on the basis that those criteria are incomplete, ie that the will of god is more important than women's right to an education, hence literacy is not a good measure of overall quality of life, as an example. But that still does not make the obeservation based on the criteria specified subjective. You can measure literacy. You can measure life expectancy.

Do you know what "Objective" actually means?  You can measure life expectancy, true.  But you can't measure "good".  "4 is less then 5" is Objective.  "The man is wearing a hat," is Objective.  "Tod is dead", is Objective.  "4 is better then 5", is Subjective.  "the man is wearing a nice hat", is Subjective.  "Tod is better off dead", is Subjective.

I'm harping on this because it's an annoying trait you have.  You confuse your opinion with something that is objectively true, and consider people who disagree with you irrational tribalists.

Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2011, 12:25:07 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures).  :ph34r:

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

Next you'll tell us the Soviets weren't always honest about their statistics :yeahright:

Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2011, 04:19:15 PM

Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2011, 12:25:07 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 11:08:49 AM
Curiously enough, Cuba has US beat on all those (except health, for which there are no statistical measures).  :ph34r:

At least, the Cuban government wants you to believe it does.  That's not a group famous for honesty and openness.

Next you'll tell us the Soviets weren't always honest about their statistics :yeahright:

I'm not gonna be the one to burst that bubble, but no.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 04:17:38 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:42:37 AM


It is because they promote values that I think one can make a pretty good argument for that are objectively good. Things like life expectancy, literacy, health, infant mortality, etc., etc. Those are not subjective, unless you want to re-define the definition of "good".

You can argue that those are subjective measures I suppose, but at that point we have no common grounds for discussion. If your argument is that the things that actually define life are not important to life, then that is just solipsism.

Which nicely illustrates my point - you would rather argue something you don't even agree with (that those things are not good measures) if that is what is necessary to hang onto your ideological perspective.

It is not subjective to say the democracy is better than not democracy based on defined criteria.

Like I've already said, you can attack my position (and I am sure some people would, like religious extremists) on the basis that those criteria are incomplete, ie that the will of god is more important than women's right to an education, hence literacy is not a good measure of overall quality of life, as an example. But that still does not make the obeservation based on the criteria specified subjective. You can measure literacy. You can measure life expectancy.

Do you know what "Objective" actually means?  You can measure life expectancy, true.  But you can't measure "good".

Of course you can, as long as you agree on what is good. For example, if we agree that literacy is good, then we can measure literacy rates and decided that Country A is objectively more good than Country B because it has higher literacy. You can argue that the criteria are wrong (and if so, make that argument), but you cannot claim that the conclusion is not objective because you *might* not agree with the criteria.

Quote
  "4 is less then 5" is Objective.  "The man is wearing a hat," is Objective.  "Tod is dead", is Objective.  "4 is better then 5", is Subjective.  "the man is wearing a nice hat", is Subjective.  "Tod is better off dead", is Subjective.

I'm harping on this because it's an annoying trait you have.  You confuse your opinion with something that is objectively true, and consider people who disagree with you irrational tribalists.

No, you are harping on this because you cannot successfully attack my position, so go after silly crap like this instead.

Why I respond, I don't know. Luckily, that at least is easily remedied.

No, if I want to attack your position that Iraq is not a functional democracy I can.  It's quite easy, and I've already done it.  Private armies that intimidate voters nullify any claims to a democracy there is.

I'm attacking your inability to know what the word "Objective" means.  For instance, Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate then the US.  Does that mean that Poland is more "good" then the US?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate  If a totalitarian dictatorship had higher rates of literacy, life expectancy, etc would that make it a better system?  In a less theoretical example some of the Scandi-Socialist countries beat the US in many of the criteria you suggest.  Does this mean you think that Scandi-Socilism is better then the American system?  Are they more "good".

I'm really weary of using statistics to compare entities that are not entirely quantifiable.  If you can quantify only some of the variables, and not others, what winds up happening is that you start optimizing the quanfiables at the expense of important, but unquantifiable things. 

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 05:44:23 PM
I'm really weary of using statistics to compare entities that are not entirely quantifiable.  If you can quantify only some of the variables, and not others, what winds up happening is that you start optimizing the quanfiables at the expense of important, but unquantifiable things.

I agree with 56% of your post.

On Iraq I think this post by Tom Ricks contains a lot of my worries incidentally the links are worth reading too - I'm jealous of the students of Lady Emma Sky at Oxford :( :
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/24/the_great_gamble_of_iraq_2012_what_to_read_about_post_surge_iraq_and_a_new_book_of_

I think the observations Ambassador Ryan Crocker strike me as particularly true: 'That the events for which the war will be remembered have not yet happened and that he kind of expected Iraq to wind up looking like Lebanon.'

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

How you define democracy matters when debating its impact in a society.  Democracy, in my view, should mean more than just reasonably free and fair elections - it should include the rule of law, civil society, reasonable separation of powers and the freedoms that underpin all of that.  Different societies will interpret that in different ways.  On the other hand you can have 'democracies' that have relatively regular reasonably free and fair elections but lack everything else.  Lebanon is a democracy.  For much of her history Pakistan has been a democracy.  Simply having elections is not sufficient to deliver the benefits of democracy though it may make a state democratic.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 05:25:33 PM


I'm attacking your inability to know what the word "Objective" means.  For instance, Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate then the US.  Does that mean that Poland is more "good" then the US?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate  If a totalitarian dictatorship had higher rates of literacy, life expectancy, etc would that make it a better system?  In a less theoretical example some of the Scandi-Socialist countries beat the US in many of the criteria you suggest.  Does this mean you think that Scandi-Socilism is better then the American system?  Are they more "good".

If Poland has a slightly higher literacy rte than the US, then Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate than the US, and if one is using literacy as a criteria for overall quality of life, then obviously that is good for Poland. Of course, as is blindingly obvious to anyone without an axe to grind, I mentioned many criteria, and literacy was just one of them. Clearly there are others.

What is your point? Poland have a higher literacy rate than the US does not prove that literacy is a poor measure, nor does it prove that using literacy as a measure is innately subjective.

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 24, 2011, 05:51:53 PM
On Iraq I think this post by Tom Ricks contains a lot of my worries incidentally the links are worth reading too - I'm jealous of the students of Lady Emma Sky at Oxford :( :
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/24/the_great_gamble_of_iraq_2012_what_to_read_about_post_surge_iraq_and_a_new_book_of_

I think the observations Ambassador Ryan Crocker strike me as particularly true: 'That the events for which the war will be remembered have not yet happened and that he kind of expected Iraq to wind up looking like Lebanon.'

I don't think there is any doubt that the future of Iraq is still very troublesome. Still, it seems like at any point since the second war, there was always well reasoned, well thought out, and considered articles about how terrible it was going to be, how hopeless the situation, and how imminent the downfall of whatever transitory and ultimately illusory gams that have been made would be.

But at this point, I think Iraq has to pretty much succeed or fail on their own. I don't know that the US can do much to influence it beyond what has already been done, and it is likely that all we are doing is staving off whatever ultimate resolution is going to happen.

But I don't accept that basic premise that if Iraq does fall apart, or becomes dominated by Iran, then that means that the US invasion failed. The point of the invasion was not to create some guaranteed great outcome, it was to remove Saddam and the threat he created, to destroy a totalitarian regime when we had the opportunity to do so, and to hopefully give a large and potentially wealthy middle eastern country at least the chance to make themselves some kind of example of what could be.

If it doesn't work out that Iraq can in fact function as a stable democracy, does that mean that the effort was a mistake? Must all outcomes be guaranteed before an effort is justified?

The US invasion, as costly as it was for the US and for Iraq, has given Iraq a chance that they certainly did not have under Saddam. In hindsight the cost was probably too high for the chance given, but like grumbler pointed out, its not like there was some better opportunity missed.

Quote

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

I don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

Quote

How you define democracy matters when debating its impact in a society.  Democracy, in my view, should mean more than just reasonably free and fair elections - it should include the rule of law, civil society, reasonable separation of powers and the freedoms that underpin all of that. 

Those are all certainly desireable things, but it is hard to decide where the absence of them means there is an absence of democracies, or the benefits democracy entails. I think there is obviously a spectrum, and most of the benefits will be realized along that spectrum.

IN other words, a lot of democracy is great, but even a little is better than none.

Quote
Different societies will interpret that in different ways.  On the other hand you can have 'democracies' that have relatively regular reasonably free and fair elections but lack everything else.  Lebanon is a democracy.  For much of her history Pakistan has been a democracy.  Simply having elections is not sufficient to deliver the benefits of democracy though it may make a state democratic.

True.

QuoteIf Poland has a slightly higher literacy rte than the US, then Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate than the US,

This is exactly my point.  That's all that it means.  It does not mean Poland is better or worse then the US.  You and I give these statistics meaning.  When we do that, it's subjective.  Do you see now?  Country A has a higher literacy rate then country B.  Objective truth.  Country A is better then country B because country A has a higher literacy rate.  Subjective.

Lets use a more immediate example.  Two politicians are running for the same office.  Say President of the United States.  We like for our Journalists to at least try to be objective.  If a journalist favors one politician over the other because that politician espouses views more in line with that journalists values can he say "This politician is better then the other one"? Would that be objective journalism?  No.  Of course not.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:38:28 PM

Quote

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

I don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

I think we can trust the literacy figures.  In Soviet Union, at least, there is no way anyone could avoid completing the school, whether you lived in a city or a remote village.  It was also a nation that was really well-read.  Of course, all book reading in the world can't teach you to think critically, but that's not a literacy issue.  Child mortality rates, of course, are a much more fakeable number, you can affect it just by changing the definition of live birth and such.

Quote from: DGuller on October 24, 2011, 10:53:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:38:28 PM

Quote

As to the rest Guller has a point that especially Communist regimes tend to have a pretty good record on things like literacy and life expectancy, comparable with their economic situation they often over perform.

I don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

I think we can trust the literacy figures.  In Soviet Union, at least, there is no way anyone could avoid completing the school, whether you lived in a city or a remote village.  It was also a nation that was really well-read.  Of course, all book reading in the world can't teach you to think critically, but that's not a literacy issue.  Child mortality rates, of course, are a much more fakeable number, you can affect it just by changing the definition of live birth and such.

Well, I think there is pretty good anecdotal evidence that the USSR for example had pretty good literacy, at least in the urban areas.

But all these "quality of life" statistics are pretty easy to fudge if you have a state controlled press. And my basic view is that government stats are largely self-serving to the extent that the government can get away with it, no matter what the ideological bent.

When it comes to Communism, you have an ideology where there isn't even any reason to be truthful about such things - there is no value associated with that kind of data except insofar as it serves the purposes of the State. So there is really no reason at all to trust the data. They lied to themselves constantly, why would anyone assume that they would be honest to outsiders?

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:58:45 PM
They lied to themselves constantly, why would anyone assume that they would be honest to outsiders?

I'd go further and point out that the figures we are talking about are not numbers made up for "outsiders," but rather the numbers the government is reporting to its own people.  There is no incentive for the government to tell the absolute truth, but plenty of incentive to make the numbers at least plausible.

I'd argue that literacy, per se, isn't all that useful a measure.  The US effective literacy rate isn't nearly as high as the nominal literacy rate, and I suspect that this is true elsewhere.  People who are "literate" by virtue of being able to read, but still cannot read a newspaper or an adult book, are not really literate for the purposes of measuring quality of life.  You'd probably need some kind of standardized test to determine "real" literacy. 

Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2011, 07:30:34 AM

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:58:45 PM
They lied to themselves constantly, why would anyone assume that they would be honest to outsiders?

I'd go further and point out that the figures we are talking about are not numbers made up for "outsiders," but rather the numbers the government is reporting to its own people.  There is no incentive for the government to tell the absolute truth, but plenty of incentive to make the numbers at least plausible.

I'd argue that literacy, per se, isn't all that useful a measure.  The US effective literacy rate isn't nearly as high as the nominal literacy rate, and I suspect that this is true elsewhere.  People who are "literate" by virtue of being able to read, but still cannot read a newspaper or an adult book, are not really literate for the purposes of measuring quality of life.  You'd probably need some kind of standardized test to determine "real" literacy. 

No real argument, but when comparing QoL stats, literacy is a decent gross measure for general education level when making comparisons between nations. It probably fails when you want to compare two pretty similar countries, like the US and Poland, but works ok as a measure when comparing dis-similar countries, to highlight the lack of educational opportunity.

As one of many such QoL variables, it is fine.

Quote from: Berkut on October 25, 2011, 07:36:10 AM
No real argument, but when comparing QoL stats, literacy is a decent gross measure for general education level when making comparisons between nations. It probably fails when you want to compare two pretty similar countries, like the US and Poland, but works ok as a measure when comparing dis-similar countries, to highlight the lack of educational opportunity.

I agree that big differences say something, while similarities don't.

Quote from: Berkut on October 24, 2011, 10:38:28 PMBut I don't accept that basic premise that if Iraq does fall apart, or becomes dominated by Iran, then that means that the US invasion failed. The point of the invasion was not to create some guaranteed great outcome, it was to remove Saddam and the threat he created, to destroy a totalitarian regime when we had the opportunity to do so, and to hopefully give a large and potentially wealthy middle eastern country at least the chance to make themselves some kind of example of what could be.

Okay.  From an American perspective I don't think the Iraq war has advanced your national interests in the Middle East at all, it could possibly have hurt them.  It distracted from Afghanistan for a number of years which is something that we're now trying to rectify.  Fiscally I think it was a disaster for your budget over the last decade.

From an Iraqi perspective at least a hundred thousand civilians have died.  Many cities have been effectively ethnically cleansed into discrete sectarian quarters.  Your country went to the brink of a civil war.  Now, after 8 years, and a successful surge that hugely increased security you're still more dangerous, for civilians, than Pakistan.  That doesn't even touch on the problems with the government - it and Hezbullah are the only Arab forces supporting Assad and so on.

I can't see from what angle it can be considered not to have failed.  Unless from an American perspective US foreign policy is to give people chances; or from an Iraqi perspective to invade, fail for a number of years then pull back from civil war to only being a 'potentially failing state'.  Who hasn't been failed by this?

QuoteIf it doesn't work out that Iraq can in fact function as a stable democracy, does that mean that the effort was a mistake? Must all outcomes be guaranteed before an effort is justified?

The US invasion, as costly as it was for the US and for Iraq, has given Iraq a chance that they certainly did not have under Saddam. In hindsight the cost was probably too high for the chance given, but like grumbler pointed out, its not like there was some better opportunity missed.

I think there was a missed opportunity and I don't think outcomes need to be guaranteed before an effort is justified but I think you've got to be committed to putting the effort in.

If the way the war's gone was inevitable and Iraq was iredeemably broken then I think that the war was not just wrong on a realist level but offensive on a moral one.  But I don't believe that.  I think Iraq could have been rebuilt successfully after the war but we, in the coalition nations, abdicated responsibility.  We never secured the country, we never established a coherent and inclusive process to rebuild Iraq.  When I hear politicians - like Blair - talking about how they didn't expect the Iranians or al-Qaeda to get involved, or for there to be sectarian or ethnic conflict I feel let down.  It's the same as the politician's apology that 'mistakes were made' without actually admitting error, or fault.  As you point out the articles were there.  I think they were ignored or dismissed as old Arab hands in the Foreign Office.

In the UK I think we'll get an answer to our political mistakes in joining the war (though it was, from our perspective, the right thing to do and any government would do the same - we need to stick by you).  I think the various inquiries have published important work and I think Chilcott will do the same.  On the other hand we lost Basra.  It was a military as well as a political failure and I don't think many people really want to admit that because everyone likes the military and it'd be a brave politician who would think that they'd be more trusted than someone in uniform.  Despite that there's a General now plugging a book on how we lost Basra because I don't think that's been widely admitted.  I hope it has in the military so we don't do it again.  I'm not terribly confident though.

In the US I don't think you'll get political answers because I think in your system right now it would automatically seem partisan, which is a shame because I'd love to see Rumsfeld being taken through his decision making process by a Commission.  And I think it would be important because I think his decisions more than anything else 'lost' Iraq.  On the other hand I think the US military seems to have entirely assimilated a lot of lessons from Iraq about how they operated.

If we could put them together it'd be useful.  But I suppose I think that if there wasn't an opportunity the war was doubly wrong, if there was then we'd do well to think about why we lost it.

QuoteI don't think I am inclined to give them a pass on their "economic situation". It is a situation created as a direct result of them being Communist regimes. And unfortunately, in regimes without a free press, how do you trust any of the statistics in any case?

I mean their other indicators are good considering how fucked their economies normally were.  I take your point on not trusting statistics, but the USSR did report dips in infant mortality rates and life expectancy so it wasn't all tractor production.  And as far as we can tell in terms of things like healthcare and, especially, education the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe and modern Vietnam and China have generally done pretty well.  Central Asian states, for example, still have unusually high female literacy rates for Islamic countries that economically undeveloped.  There are more primary school kids learning English in China than in India.  I don't necessarily think central planning hurts when devising minimum healthcare or education schemes (being batshit crazy does - Mao and Pol Pot).

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 05:25:33 PM
No, if I want to attack your position that Iraq is not a functional democracy I can.  It's quite easy, and I've already done it.  Private armies that intimidate voters nullify any claims to a democracy there is.

I'm attacking your inability to know what the word "Objective" means.  For instance, Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate then the US.  Does that mean that Poland is more "good" then the US?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate  If a totalitarian dictatorship had higher rates of literacy, life expectancy, etc would that make it a better system?  In a less theoretical example some of the Scandi-Socialist countries beat the US in many of the criteria you suggest.  Does this mean you think that Scandi-Socilism is better then the American system?  Are they more "good".

IMO, sometimes things are better on moral grounds to do even if they are pragmatically worse for everyone.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 25, 2011, 05:12:32 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 05:25:33 PM
No, if I want to attack your position that Iraq is not a functional democracy I can.  It's quite easy, and I've already done it.  Private armies that intimidate voters nullify any claims to a democracy there is.

I'm attacking your inability to know what the word "Objective" means.  For instance, Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate then the US.  Does that mean that Poland is more "good" then the US?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate  If a totalitarian dictatorship had higher rates of literacy, life expectancy, etc would that make it a better system?  In a less theoretical example some of the Scandi-Socialist countries beat the US in many of the criteria you suggest.  Does this mean you think that Scandi-Socilism is better then the American system?  Are they more "good".

IMO, sometimes things are better on moral grounds to do even if they are pragmatically worse for everyone.

I agree with you, but that doesn't agree with Berkut's position that democracy is objectively better, unless you want to argue that certain moral values are objectively better than others.

Quote from: dps on October 25, 2011, 10:21:55 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 25, 2011, 05:12:32 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2011, 05:25:33 PM
No, if I want to attack your position that Iraq is not a functional democracy I can.  It's quite easy, and I've already done it.  Private armies that intimidate voters nullify any claims to a democracy there is.

I'm attacking your inability to know what the word "Objective" means.  For instance, Poland has a slightly higher literacy rate then the US.  Does that mean that Poland is more "good" then the US?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate  If a totalitarian dictatorship had higher rates of literacy, life expectancy, etc would that make it a better system?  In a less theoretical example some of the Scandi-Socialist countries beat the US in many of the criteria you suggest.  Does this mean you think that Scandi-Socilism is better then the American system?  Are they more "good".

IMO, sometimes things are better on moral grounds to do even if they are pragmatically worse for everyone.

I agree with you, but that doesn't agree with Berkut's position that democracy is objectively better, unless you want to argue that certain moral values are objectively better than others.

My position is that assuming some basic criteria for quality of life are valid, you can objectively state that democracies are more successful overall than non-democracies.

You can, of course, argue that those values themselves are not valid measures of quality of life, a point I made right from the beginning. But that is largely specious, since all of use here are going to be in general agreement that in fact those values are valid measures (things like literacy, life expextancy, infant mortality rates, etc., etc.).

Once can objectively state that democracies are better at providing a higher quality of life so long as you can agree that the standard measures for QoL are in fact valid measures. I contencd that anyone who does not agree with those measures probably isn't worth arguing with anyway - it is like arguing with someone who does not agree that 4 is greater than 3, because "greater" might mean something other than numerically larger. They may have a point in some theoretical sense, but who cares?