Syria

The Core RPGC Main Forum
#18

We’re going in circles and you’re not really addressing anything that I’m saying.

Your blind idealism is impractical and is not taking into consideration many things For example, that some people in Egypt think that the Muslim Brotherhood fucked the pooch doesn’t mean that they learned that the politics of the Muslim Brotherhood was bad. This is a gross oversimplification of the philosophy and socio-cultural-ethnic affiliations that have allowed groups like the MB to grow. There is no evidence that demonstrates that people who used to be aligned with the MB actually think the MB’s ways were wrong and therefore reject their political and religious messages. In fact, the evidence points in the other direction and not only in Egypt but elsewhere. It is much more common for people to develop an identity in relation to these kinds of things and thus for people to behave irrationally when it comes to the political decisions they make. Look at Congress right now.

Additionally, you’re not acknowledging the deep differences between US and other countries in terms of culture, history, resources, technology, external forces. You’re comparing apples and oranges. That the US exists as flawed as it is, is by no means proof that anyone anywhere can reproduce this at any time. The US, just like the empires before it, is the product of its times and unique sets of circumstances. N = 1 is not reproducibility.

Until you have something of substance to add to the points I’ve brought up, I’m not going to reply further. I’m looking for depth, facts and logic, not magical thinking.

#19

Democracy has been successfully implemented in both India and Japan. Both are non-Western cultures, historically even more radically different from the West than Arab or Persian cultures.

Also, cultures change. America, as I pointed out, is an example. This is an important point and directly addresses what you said - since you argued that Mideasterners can’t function in a democracy because of their culture. Yet if their culture can change, then they can potentially, in the future, evolve a culture which can handle democracy.

#20

You’re going to have to work much harder than that. Much much harder.

#21

No kind of cancer can kill RPGC. Sin can fix cancer. We have an out.

#22

I’m really amused sinistral has declined to argue in circles, strikes me as grown up. Or something. Oh and thanks! Communications I guess. I want to work in baseball or radio. For baseball I guess most things will do (its more a who you know kinda thing) but the degree is the fall back. I guess. I’m not very good at these things. Radio would mean primarily politics, which sounds pretty meh.

Id rather talk about the shutdown anyway.

#23

I really hope that works out for you.

Re: the shut down, its the most hilarious display of governmental dysfunction since the RPGC Staff forums. Its an endless gold mine of comedy for Colbert and Stewart.

Its nice someone cares that the spending is out of control and there is a problem. However, it is sad to see our congressmen have the mental capacity of gold fish as they try to fix it.

#24

I think Sin’s approach here is methodologically flawed. I don’t disagree that there’s little substance behind the messianic rhetoric of democracy, or behind the generally accepted dogma that voting is incompatible with oppression and tyranny, but I also don’t think it’s really viable to argue about this on Sin’s terms; as he says, empires are a product of their times and circumstances and, by that very nature, don’t really produce much in the way of reproducible results. As such, one can’t advocate any course of action or otherwise take any stance that isn’t purely negative. In other words, any argument put forth can be rejected on the same basis as Curtis’s was — that this is a unique situation in which any evidence from another time, place, or set of circumstances is inadmissible. I agree that no opinion on the subject can be proved to be the best course of action, but I don’t think that’s a particularly meaningful or productive insight.

#25

I don’t claim the argument I’m proposing is best at defining whether or not to intervene. I agree that my argument was narrowly targeted at the proposal Curtis was putting forward. You need to handle things on a case by case basis to assess what can be reasonably expected from an intervention and that gets very complicated very quickly.

#26

even if a military intervention won’t establish a democracy, I still believe that the people of Syria can learn to live in a democracy. it just takes a long time.

#27

Ah, I got the impression you were speaking more broadly, Sin. In that case, I agree, there’s a widespread and baseless assumption that a U.S.-style democracy is the best possible system anywhere in the world could have. I mean “baseless” not in the sense that there aren’t convincing arguments that could be offered, but that those arguments rarely are offered; everyone seems to say democracy is the ideal solution without explaining why.

#28

Kid I like your moxy. Yer alright in my play book.

#29

Any population can learn to live in a democracy. It just takes a little genocide to get the seed conditions right.

#30

Anybody can start up a democracy. Keeping it democratic though, now that’s the trick.

#31

I’m going to do something I’ve never done before and agree with Arac. Democracy is not “inevitable,” and it is not “the only system of government that has worked in the long run.” The post-Republic Roman empire lasted over 500 years. China had various periods of stability of several hundred years under emperors and kings. In contrast, the United States has existed for less than 250 years, and in light of the Civil War, there are arguments it has not even been stable for that long.

With respect to Syria, we have nothing to gain from replacing a ruthless pragmatist like Assad, who at least negotiates based on rational self-interest, with an Islamist zealot, who seeks mainly to destroy his religious and ancestral enemies. Our failed experiment in Egypt made that clear enough.

#32

But is longevity really the best measure to use when rating a society? Seems to me that people fulfill their potential best in democracies - democracies produce the best academic and artistic accomplishments.

#33

Well, if you say so. On a per capita basis, I find the artistic accomplishments of, say, England as a constitutional monarchy (with a million or so people and a monarch with real power) much more impressive than those of modern England (with fifty times as many people and a token monarch).

#34

I need to sit down for a minute.

#35

What do you mean a token monarch, Sir? /has rapier polished

You account for population, but not for time. Anyway, artistic development is probably more of a result of support for the arts rather than of the form of government.

#36

I think that if you assert that all civilizations are reasonably capable of the same things (like public health, government and a culture of progress through the economic conditions) then yes, longevity is a fair way to measure the relative success or failure of a civilazation. For example, Macedonia. Under Alexander it was a sprawling empire that fits those criteria above, but is it successful? Due to the total length of the empire, all of Alexanders life plus like 10 year so roughly 40 total, would you call it a success?

#37

Longevity is an interesting criterion, but not the only one. For instance, Macedonia fell apart but gave rise to the Hellenistic world and turned Greek into the common language of the wider region. Many classic Greek texts of the era are saved in Hellenistic versions. Greek becomes at some point the de facto and official language of the East Roman Empire and enjoys significant status in the West for centuries as one of the two languages that an educated person ought to know. There are also ties between these events and the Renaissance.

The starting assertion is a tricky one though. Public health for instance is a massively controversial issue. The choices in government are not the same in all eras/civilisations/regions and the absolute importance of the economic conditions is not uncontested either.