Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
And simultaneously apply those beliefs to your opinions on both foreign policy and the world we live in at the moment?
Although I would practice them if it was possible and I wish I could. One man can't change the world unfortunately.
to read those questions AND work out what they mean?
But with difficulty.
Now stop trying to get people to do your coursework.
I really occupy my mind thinking about these things...
i hate people who say 'you should never ever use war/violence to achieve your goals in any situation ever'.
in terms of 'never, ever'. Instead, Pacifism should be aimed for at all times, but we must appreciate when that fails. A situation that hasnt really occurred in the past 60 years (I dont want to dispute ww2).
it would be easy to argue that both Afgahnistan and Iraq were countries with brutal dictatorial regimes that were highly unlikely to be overthrown without milatry action from abroad.
This isn't necessarily to say that I agree with these wars 'cos I didn't at the time and don't now for various reasons but, at the same time, without said military action two very brutal dictatorships would still be in power.
tiny thing, Pol Pot was Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge did actually enact some sensible policies and extend democracy (before they became murderous bastards that was). Not everything is black and white.
I mean you can't really balance up "enacting some sensible policies" and "murdering fuckloads" and then say it's even in the good and bad columns...
of all naughty countries and then go on a bombing and killing rampage, or invade if you yourself happen to run a country, when the dust settles you could argue that in the long run you've saved lives, however bad it might look now. Sure Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson might, maybe, agree ...
also, didn't Che Guevara's masterplan for creating the global communist paradise involve triggering a nuclear war during the missile crisis, which would've wiped out a large percentage of human race. And he's considered a godo guy.
godo is a Georgian bird known for a red helmet.
when they were fighting the russians.
I didnt say it was easy, but it can be done.
Whether or not the West backed them isn't really relevant to the question of whether, once established, they could have been removed without military intervention.
from sensible semi-pacifists such as myself was that regime change could have been a potentially valid reason for invasion of either iraq or afghanistan (emphasis on 'could') but that this would mean other countries - ones without so much oil - would also need similar attention based on the same principle.
yes also in practice
although realistically with the world as it is only giving me a dictatorship would allow its implementation.
Some things will need to be enforced, so it would not be completely budhist like pacifist passivity, but with the minimal co-ercion as the aim will be to instill by co-operation and trust.
Yes it would involve some defined loss of free will and determination.......but it would be a loss of free will and self determination for people to be ordered and controled by non humanistic commercial and authoritarian power systems. In effect tehy would all have more freedom of indivisual expression, except for that that impinges others more harmonious freedoms.
Ghenghis Khan actually had the aim of global peace, he thought it was only achievable by uniting all people under one overall ruler, that way there would be no 'other' to fight against. Of course the problem here is that he had to try to gain the control that would allow this to happen.
Of course any 'country' where the power is inherited still has possible outside hostile influences.
It is possible though.....absolutely. I've tried to know as much as I can, and from what I can see it is possible....just very unlikely, as most people, even in democracies are quite weak as human beings. There is a large deception that the democracies that we have are the perfect pinnacle of what can be achieved in human society (some think this and make snipey remarks pointing out that communism and hippy socialist communes dont work....of course some under fuedal systems also argued similarly) If you dont believe things can be improved then we're stuffed.
as would pm ship of the UK (or YURP)
Giving you or anyone else a dicatorship is unlikely without violence to achieve this.
Ultimately living under any kind of dictatorship would not be equal to a belief in universal rights and freedoms as the freedom to choose who you are governed by would not exist.
Personalyl I very much beleive that democracies (tho' not the democracies we have) are absolutely the best and fairest system of government anybody has come up with so far. Of course the democracies could become more democratic but I believe democracy is absolutely the 'best' path humanity can take.
If you have to many people echoing the sentiments as above. Then there is a danger that the rulers of countries ansure that ther system that you have can nominally be called or described as 'rule by the people' whereas in actual fact it is very far from the spirit of the description.
Merely being entitled to call yourself a democracy, does not meant that necessarily a lot of democraic principles will be applied (or indeed new improved ones developed)
There is a dangerous tendancy to sit on laurels of being better than communist russia and theocracies.
It might actually be possible for a dictator to apply more democracy than a nominal democracy does.
I mean whenever has my voice or opinion or knowledge counted or been used.......never.
I have lived in wards that have always been absolute copper bottomed safe seats.
I was prevented from joining the civil service.
I don't get replies from mps or councilers (yes I am a lot politer and use punctuation and right spelling n stuff)
I imagine that the same applies to many others too.
i suspect they dont even read them.
the alternative is 'to improve the liberal dempocratic system'
or an element of it has been around as an idea and touted by an actual party, yet has not been introduced, yet surely this is also a no brainer as it is obviously a fairer way of representing the proportion of the population better.
There is little will in this democratic system, they are too comfy to want to change to hurridly
yet a dictatorship (by me) would seem to be a necessary interim stage (at some point) to being able to get teh right setting to introduce universal human rights.......unfortunately you couldnt just drop pascifism and human rights from a great height onto the world as it is, it would need to change before it can be implemented, people would need to have trust restored in human nature, a trust that has been eroded by much unpleasent and recriminated against history......like I say it is achievable, but very unlikely, therefore better stuf needs to happen.
I am not sugesting that replacing democracy is the best idea really, but certainly it is not helpful to have people constantly defendin what you have when in fact ti does amount to a dictatorship.......people are dictated to, but not by a coherent benevolent dictator but by warring scrabbling dictators, who enforce your (often unwilling consent) by rightly )often pointing out the oppositions worse attributres, you only support one system of government because you fear the alternatives, you also fear humans basically because most dictatorships are awful..........actually seriously they are, and I only keep talking about dictatorships because I dont trust the political parties. I trust other individuals....im not cpompletely arrogant and big headed....in fact there are others on this board who i think are much better at this sort of thing than me, what ultimately bursts my bubble with trusting such individuals is when they put such faith and trust in organisations and parties and groups which I cannot avoid believing are demonstrably inferior. This kind of erodes my trust in these individuals.....no not actually my trust in them but in their own judgement of their own competance.
Basically I trust them, but I dont trust who they trust. I admire and look up to them but find this so difficult to reconcile with them not putting their own competance above organisations that to me obviously have inferior group competance..........its bewildering......hence I churlishly ....I want a dictatorship.
the khmere rouge to much in this discussion, as trhe reason for their behaviour and the driving force behind it comes about because of machinations and attacks from outside their country.
If you know what happened, the 'un understandable maleavalance the youngkhmere rouge had towards city dwellers and educated people and those who could speak foreign languages would be totally understandable. Unfortunately most people are not aware of what happened to the mostly young fighters before they arrived to take Phnom Peng.
It is imagined that it was ONLY political indoctrination from the chancer busy body pol pot, bringing his western education from paris with a french and (previous )russian commune flavour.
He would not have been able to instill that amount of ferocity and cruelness in his fighters just by words.....no he took advantage and manipulated the awful horror that had befallen the young future khmer rouge fighters.
To put it in simple terms (which is not a diservice in this case because most rural cambodians were uncomplicated.
Cambodia was a largely rural country, with a few towns and one exceedingly (relatively) large city, with more foregn influences (originally french colonial) The city dwellers were seen by those in the country as very different sorts, they were quite fat and greedy and lazy, they were tolerated though because the hereditary ruler had semi religeous/spiritual significance to them too, they revered him a bit as belonging to them.....even though he was a bit of a playboy (mild) he did reciprocate mostly.
THe US was fighting in vietnam, the ho che ming trail is in the jungly far east of cambodia....mostly well away from farming rural cambodians and any towns and any area that could be influenced by cambodia. The Us wanted cambodia involved so that the NVA and Vietcong could be fought along the ho che ming trail officially.
The ruler of cambodia wanted none of this, he couldnt and didnt want to get in a rumble or causse fighting in his country, he didnt want cambodia dragged into it. It would have been impossible for cambodian forces to prevent the vietnamese going south through the cambodian jungle.
When the ruler was out of the country the US helped a 'willing' general to instigate a military coup detat in cambodia.
The rural cambodians were angry, they only tolerated the lazy taxing non productive city dwellers because of the allegiance they had to the lands traditional ruler who they semi worshiped (think of the UK queen) This particular general was a bit incompetant and not thought of highly, therefore there were protests and some scuffles sometimes....these were put down by the authorities, but rather ineffectually (the authorities and military in cambodia were a bit crap)
As unrest grew and the usurper was unable to quell the disatisfaction he called on his allies to help.......they did......US planes ended up napalming and nbombing villages with restless peasents.....opposition increased.....survivers of a bombing on one village would move having seen maybe their parents and some siblings burnt alive by napalm...maybe a baby brother......when they arrived in another village this village would be a seen as a centre of unrest because of the angry survivors so this also got bombed......the survivors grouped and were easily indoctrinated by the likes of pol pot.....after all.
Their spiritual leader had been forcably deposed by corrups tax taking non productive city types who, when they protested, called in foreigners (they'd probably never met an american) who rained down liquid fire and killed their family by burning, they then witnessed this happening in village after village, and they knew that the the reason that they were targeted was because they had protested against the city.....and that the ciy had invited foreigners to destroy their home/farm/ family/freinds....they will have also been in a stae of shock.....so basically the US air force and the cambodian usurpers created and forged the material for the khmere rouge army........pol pot merely assembled and programmed it, naurlly there were those willing to supply/arm the opposition (as there will always be)
Pol pot was a person who siezed an opportunity to make his mark. I suspect Hitler felt the same way.
of course this all might be a a 'wrong' opinion, it might just be my opinion that the US helped intigating an unpopular coup in a sovereign foregn power to remove a popular leader, the US might not have then helped bomb people who objected to the forcable removal of the only acknowledged rightful leader. This might only be my opinion because I am a well known lefty and hippy, so naturally I would lie about such things to help cast aspersions against the US government foregn policy.....its par for the course.......to be expected.....nest pas? (GG)
Since the liberal conception of "rights and freedoms" basically translates to "complete freedom from interference with rights", liberal states would seem to be precluded from going to war in the first place.
Of course, if you believe in any form of positive rights then this doesn't hold. But most traditional liberals don't, which causes them several kinds of crisis of conscience when confronted with intolerant regimes. See also: multicultarlism, competition law.