Was Egypt, Iraq, Libya etc better off living under a dictator?

Wibbs · 01-09-2013 12:33PM

Old style imperialism was about money, resources and the "improvement" of the natives in our own image. One might argue that today the west's(particularly the US*) idea of imposing our own brand of democracy is cultural imperialism and like the old style imperialism is often backed up by the gunboat. In both cases for the most part the "natives" lose out.

*the US is an empire in all but name, but unlike the Spanish, French, British et al that went before them they feel uncomfortable in admitting it.

Riddle101 · 01-09-2013 02:35PM

The problem with Democracy is that the United States has given it a bad name, thanks to the Cold War and them trying to impose it on countries. But I still refuse look down on Democracy no matter how much countries abuse it. We still have rights, we can vote, and for the most part most Democracies bring stability. Unfortunately however, Democracy has been hijacked and mutated by governments to impose their will on people and that's the main problem. But the concept is still what it is.

Dictatorships however have a track record of human rights abuses, and massacres. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong all caused a lot of suffering during their time in power and I don't think anyone would want to be under a dictatorship like theirs. Even in more modern times we have the same thing, Saddam Hussein massacred the Kurds, and North Korea is dealing with a starvation problem. I don't know I just don't trust Dictatorships.

To me in an ideal world, Democracy is the way to go. But only if it is done right and not abused. Otherwise it's just a corrupted version of Democracy and not the same thing. Then again it also depends on the politicians as well. I think Ireland has a great democratic system, but the people we have in government are not very good or popular, so it gets a bad name here as well.

As for whether countries in the Arab Spring were better of under a dictatorship. The problem is that religions tends to play a big part in those countries so it causes a lot of problems. That along with international interference makes it harder for those countries to accept Democracy because of their nature. Some countries might not be ready for Democracy. But you'd have to ask people who lived in those countries to know the truth really.

Nodin · 01-09-2013 02:39PM

bizmark wrote: »

Funny basically (............)you and debate through out boards

If you think sectarian bigotry is a valid basis on which to opine about anything, I'd say it's you that has the problem.

--Kaiser-- · 01-09-2013 02:53PM

With regard to Muslim countries and their apparent hot-headedness....

Lateral thinking proponent Edward De Bono, when asked for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, suggested that both sides should be supplied with Marmite. His reasoning is that both cultures tend to eat unleavened bread which being, deficient in zinc (of which Marmite is a source), leads to irritability and aggression in males (due to subsequent low testosterone levels). Personally I think it's lack of bacon (not kosher or halal) that does it

bizmark · 01-09-2013 03:45PM

Nodin wrote: »

If you think sectarian bigotry is a valid basis on which to opine about anything, I'd say it's you that has the problem.

I think everything is a valid basis on which to have an opinion and worth considering for a proper debate or complete view point on the subject it speaks volumes and backs up my own opinion that you would prefer to dismiss or possibly silence a alternative opinions than your own with hand waving of sectarianism.

In short old Aussies opinion is no less valid than yours simply because you decide it to be so due to him not fitting into a narrow definition of whats acceptable.

Bylar Bear · 01-09-2013 04:16PM

Since I have not lived in under any of these regimes or their antecedents, I can only guess given the incomplete picture painted by the western media (and God knows how accurate and truthful they are). It appears to me the Muslim world does not seem to be able to maintain a stable democracy for very long. Egypt’s ‘democratic’ government fell in less than a year. And a large portion of the rebels in Syria are Al Qaida fighters who have no dreams of democracy, only a state ruled under Sharia Law. If the rebellion is success, one can only hope the Free Syrian Army manages to take power.

If the people of these nations continue to fight for democracy, then it should be done without western interference. Any form of government must be of their own design. Any action by the west would present a lose-lose scenario as whomever took power afterwards, I fear, would degenerate into another brutal dictatorship.

I await the glorious social justice warriors of this forum to flame me with racism accusations for not stating an opinion that conforms completely to theirs.

Nodin · 01-09-2013 04:21PM

bizmark wrote: »

I think everything is a valid basis on which to have an opinion and worth considering for a proper debate or complete view point on the subject it speaks volumes and backs up my own opinion that you would prefer to dismiss or possibly silence a alternative opinions than your own with hand waving of sectarianism.

In short old Aussies opinion is no less valid than yours simply because you decide it to be so due to him not fitting into a narrow definition of whats acceptable.

....that considers all opinions to be equal. An opinion based on a falsehood - such as racism, sexism, sectarianism, homophobia etc - is not a valid one.

Bylar Bear · 01-09-2013 04:24PM

Nodin wrote: »

....that considers all opinions to be equal. An opinion based on a falsehood - such as racism, sexism, sectarianism, homophobia etc - is not a valid one.

Screaming racism because somebody doesnt like their opinion doesn't actually make somebody a racist or their opinion invalid.

Nodin · 01-09-2013 04:33PM

Bylar Bear wrote: »

Screaming racism because somebody doesnt like their opinion doesn't actually make somebody a racist or their opinion invalid.

...well for one thing, I haven't been "screaming racism". Secondly, if somebody bases their opinion on a falsehood - eg x are incapable of governing themselves, because of their inferior/mad nature - then that opinion is invalid. It's based on nonsense.

The Rad Runner · 01-09-2013 04:42PM

Nodin wrote: »

...I haven't been "screaming racism"....

Sore throat today then is it Nodin? Get some Halls or Tunes into you and ya'll be back to yourself in no time

Piliger · 01-09-2013 04:44PM

Riddle101 wrote: »

Either way, there's a lot more to it then just oil or resources. While i've no doubt the US cares about resources, there's more to it then just that I think. But the US doesn't seem to learn form history.

Ah you're spoiling all the America haters fun with facts ! They can only operate with small words and small concepts. It's al about oil. That's nice and easy for them to repeat and repeat and repeat.

bizmark · 01-09-2013 05:05PM

Nodin wrote: »

....that considers all opinions to be equal. An opinion based on a falsehood - such as racism, sexism, sectarianism, homophobia etc - is not a valid one.

I would say that such blinkered absolutism is convenient for a group so in love with their own world view that nothing and no one can be allowed question it.

Bylar Bear · 01-09-2013 05:06PM

Nodin wrote: »

...well for one thing, I haven't been "screaming racism". Secondly, if somebody bases their opinion on a falsehood - eg x are incapable of governing themselves, because of their inferior/mad nature - then that opinion is invalid. It's based on nonsense.

Nobody said they are inferior. You are just throwing words 'falsehood', 'bigotry' and 'nonsense' around cheaply and infact are invalidating your own opinion.

Nodin · 01-09-2013 05:13PM

Bylar Bear wrote: »

Nobody said they are inferior. You are just throwing words 'falsehood', 'bigotry' and 'nonsense' around cheaply and infact are invalidating your own opinion.

It was an example of an opinion based on a falsehood. To give another - If somebody states that 'In my opinion, the economy will pick up, because Santa Clause will give us all a bonus this year' that opinion is invalid.

bizmark wrote:

I would say that such blinkered absolutism is convenient for a group so in love with their own world view that nothing and no one can be allowed question it.

Some things are absolute. Saying the world is spherical in shape and deriding the notion that its flat is perfectly fair enough.

bizmark · 01-09-2013 05:35PM

Nodin wrote: »

Some things are absolute. Saying the world is spherical in shape and deriding the notion that its flat is perfectly fair enough.

A simplistic geological observation easily provable or disprovable is not a good example for something as complex as say the catch all "racism" which could include human nature culture religion and social development and the debate that all are equally as valid as each other or one is better than the other or not compatible with others

Nazis or 1930s ussr are clearly not as valid or acceptable a society as say 1950s america for most of the right thinking planet to claim so is neither racism nor bigotry merely an opinion that can be debated and proven though skin heads and commies might feel its unfairly bigotry towards their distinct cultural group.

Shutting down debate conversations and opinions with isms is something that needs to end imho

UCDVet · 01-09-2013 06:07PM

shane9689 wrote: »

but thats the thing, your job will suck balls, your famaily wont be safe and walking to work will still be dangerous...thats why dictatorships dont work, because that fat guy at the top doesnt have to care...whilst under democracy, they may still be fat cats but atleast they have to pay more attention to whats going on at the bottom level otherwise theyre out.

There are a lot of assumptions and I'm not sure I agree with them.

* Your job will suck balls
* Your family won't be safe
* Walking to work will still be dangerous

I'm not convinced. Since 2 out of 3 deal with crime, let's have a look...

Take a look at this list of the 10 most dangerous cities in the world: I grabbed it at random. http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/from-around-the-blogs/57547-10-dangerous-cities-in-the-world

San Pedro Sula – Honduras (Not a dictatorship)
Ciudad Huarez – Mexico (Not a dictatorship)
Maceio - Brazil (Not a dictatorship)
Acapulco - Mexico (Not a dictatorship)
Sharm el Sheikh - Egypt (I'd argue it's a dictatorship)
Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia (Not a dictatorship)
Johannesburg - South Africa (Not a dictatorship)
Caracas - Venezuela (Not a dictatorship)
Marrakech - Morocco (Not a dictatorship)
New Orleans - U.S.A (Not a dictatorship)

I'm not convinced that there is a strong correlation between type of government and crime. I'm also not convinced that it's so easy to decide what is and isn't a dictatorship.

Anyway, I'll agree 100% that *if* I were a vocal opponent of the government, dictatorship would be bad for me and my family. If I held some controversial ideas or where an outspoken voice against the government....super dangerous. But I just want to go about my day. I'm just a happy cog in the machine.

Hardly matters to me if it's a King I'm supporting or a President.

There are plenty of laws that infringe on my freedoms in Ireland, plenty of laws that are more religiously motivated than anything else, plenty of politicians that *I* believe should be in jail but collect huge pensions....

Wars and uprisings rarely benefit people like me. Sure they try to appeal to your emotional side and get you all riled up....but come'on, it's the new leaders...it's great for them. It's the other countries/governments/corporations that benefit.

The US likes to send troops and supplies and aid 'freedom fighters' in overthrowing governments....but come'on. Are they really doing it for the locals? Or are they securing their own interests?

And when the smoke all clears, when the bombings stop, instead of a dictator I get to vote for two rich people I don't know or care about, and hope I can go back to doing what I was doing before it all started.

Nodin · 01-09-2013 06:11PM

bizmark wrote: »

A simplistic geological observation easily provable or disprovable is not a good example for something as complex as say the catch all "racism" which could include human nature culture religion and social development and the debate that all are equally as valid as each other or one is better than the other or not compatible with others
..............

Racism, by its definition, does not include such things.

Grab All Association · 01-09-2013 06:46PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Regards Syria, litterly anything is better than living under a mass murdering gas using psychopath like Assad, a modern day Hitler.

Evidence of this?

Grayson · 02-09-2013 01:03AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Ask somebody that has lived under both regimes. Not a bunch of mainly middle class irish people.

In that case, they're not better off.

Geomy · 02-09-2013 01:23AM

A lot of middle eastern countries have didifferent tribe's and culture's all mixed into one religion, Islam.

They're different to us westerners and maybe western influence doesn't agree with the majority of middle eastern people.

It's never a good idea to put a few pike into a lake full of Rudd....good for the Pike but not good for the Rudd.

Some fishermen will say that the pike will only feed on the weak and diseased rudd, other fishermen will say the pike will eat all the rudd until there's only pike left in the lake,then the pike will eat one another....

shane9689 · 02-09-2013 01:24AM

UCDVet wrote: »

There are a lot of assumptions and I'm not sure I agree with them.

* Your job will suck balls
* Your family won't be safe
* Walking to work will still be dangerous

I'm not convinced. Since 2 out of 3 deal with crime, let's have a look...

Take a look at this list of the 10 most dangerous cities in the world: I grabbed it at random. http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/from-around-the-blogs/57547-10-dangerous-cities-in-the-world

San Pedro Sula – Honduras (Not a dictatorship)
Ciudad Huarez – Mexico (Not a dictatorship)
Maceio - Brazil (Not a dictatorship)
Acapulco - Mexico (Not a dictatorship)
Sharm el Sheikh - Egypt (I'd argue it's a dictatorship)
Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia (Not a dictatorship)
Johannesburg - South Africa (Not a dictatorship)
Caracas - Venezuela (Not a dictatorship)
Marrakech - Morocco (Not a dictatorship)
New Orleans - U.S.A (Not a dictatorship)

i agree alot of those arent dictatorships
but
morocco is a dictatorship and to say otherwise would be niave. in the case of venezuela, you could argue that it is a dictatorship aswell due to very very sketchy elections and politics thus far....
also your looking at the stats for cities

look at it for countries and an entirely different picture is painted
http://www.clicktop10.com/2013/04/top-10-most-dangerous-countries-to-live-in-2013/

^ although not all dictatorships, you would hardly call them democratic either.

your attitude seems to be "dont care, aslong as it doesnt bother me" do you really think thats the way things are? that you would be grandy dandy living in these places?

shane9689 · 02-09-2013 01:25AM

also, a prime example...north korea

Boombastic · 02-09-2013 01:39AM

The problem with Egypt, Libya etc is that the sun gets too hot there. That messes with your head after a while.

MonaPizza · 02-09-2013 01:54AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Now I know I don't live there and haven't lived under any of the previous regimes, but it looks to me like most of the Arab Spring countries were better places to live under their dictators than they are now.

Iraq, Libya and Egypt and other such places have turned into one big sh1tfcuk. Civil war everywhere in the region. One hell of a mess and no sign of it stopping for years to come.

Hundreds of thousands dead and millions on the run for somewhere safe to live.

There'll be a never ending civil war in that part of the world.

And as has been shown in Egypt, when you throw out one dictator, you get a new democratically elected dictator in his place, who then has to be fcuked out so back to square one.

So, am I alone in thinking that those countries were better off with a dictator keeping order and stopping Shia's from killing Sunni's and vice versa?

Ghadaffi wasn't a dictator. In fact he had very little input into the running of daily affairs in Libya. Most decisions were made by local councils regarding education, fiscal policy, trade operations, etc.
It worked for the people of Libya but we in another part of the world automatically assume that there's only one way to run a country.

LostBoy101 · 02-09-2013 02:29AM

Dj Grimreefer wrote: »

The only one thats benifits most in all of this is America,

Lybia was because Gadaffi wanted to trade his oil for gold not USD,
Iraq "weapons of mass destcruction" ha ha great intel there but thats was just an excuse to go to war to get oil
Afgan was about the countries minerals just so happend they found a huge lithium vein there.

so from my point of view America is just trying to secure resources for the near future,

if it was all really about the people then why don't America help the starving? America will only go into something to benifit themselfs

Yep and the fact Iraq wanted to trade oil for euro instead of USD which would of crippled the American financial markets.

Clandestine · 02-09-2013 03:10AM

I've often wondered how a benevolent dictator would impact a country. Sometimes I feel that form of leadership would be better than a democracy.

Swan Curry · 02-09-2013 03:16AM

Clandestine wrote: »

I've often wondered how a benevolent dictator would impact a country. Sometimes I feel that form of leadership would be better than a democracy.

Too bad it's impossible.

Karl Stein · 02-09-2013 03:36AM

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

They seemed to have been really starting to flourish in their attitudes and economically, then he and his religious nut buddies came along and set the country back 100 years minimum.

Why yes. That makes perfect sense. Perfect sense if you completely ignore the overthrowing of the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh administration by the US/UK for having the audacity to want to take control of their own hydrocarbons in 1953.

The US/UK have a history of despising and brutally crushing democracies that bring the 'wrong' result.

bizmark · 02-09-2013 11:47AM

Nodin wrote: »

Racism, by its definition, does not include such things.

By a strick definition your right however real world all those things are subsumed by the definition of racism if someone doesn't like you questioning any aspect of any one of them if the person or culture is slightly more tanned than you or hell even if they arent.

I have even seen on papers people with straight faces claiming that anyone questioning Millie Cyrus "dance" on mtv is sexist now by definition and simple common sense thats not true but it sure used to shut down criticism in the past so lets scream it now.

Anyone who has ever tried to speak on such subjects is well aware of this and a lot who read them with out a ideology to mask the obvious use of these loaded words also see's it.

Anyway considering we are down to dictionary definitions compered to sprite of the words use now im letting this be my last comment on this subject.

Nodin · 02-09-2013 02:41PM

bizmark wrote: »

By a strick definition your right however real world all those things are subsumed by the definition of racism if someone doesn't like you questioning any aspect of any one of them if the person or culture is slightly more tanned than you or hell even if they arent.
........

....that's something that should be taken up with those that do so.

Was Egypt, Iraq, Libya etc better off living under a dictator?

Comments