The Energon Pub

You know how I used to despise the War in Iraq?

I changed my mind.

Here's how I came to that:

Yes, we went in under false pretenses. They didn't have WMDs, that much we know.

The problem is, what would've happened if we let Saddam continue? Kim Jong Il developed Nuclear stuff. What's would've stopped Saddam?

Then there's the fact that we forced them into Democracy. It seems wrong, right? Actually, it's a good idea. If we didn't let them choose someone not crazy, then someone just like Saddam (Possibly worse, possibly better, I can't really say) would've come into power. Then they would've developed nuclear weapons.

And then there's the "no exit strategy" problem. This isn't just about not thinking ahead. We know that if we pull out now, Iraq would be thrust into a violent civil war. If this happens, there's a good chance they'd go back to a Dictatorship. That's how 9 out of 10 Dictatorships start!

That's about all I have. I still don't like Bush that much, but now he just seems like a president who was put into a less-than-favorable situation by some less-than-decent men.

And now we have Iran between 2 US-occupied countries. I seriously don't get what this Iranian "President" is thinking by kidnapping Marines.

DesalationReborn wrote:And now we have Iran between 2 US-occupied countries. I seriously don't get what this Iranian "President" is thinking by kidnapping Marines.

If someone becomes president who'd continue the war, I'd put my money on Iran being next on "the list."

Then we'd take Egypt. They're not really that bad, but we'd take them just so we could have out pictures taken with a mummy.

I would.

I'm not so sure that warring the hell out of the Iraqis and basically saying "hey guys this is really for your best, trust us" is the optimal approach to take. I mean... The US doesn't really have a grand reputation in the Middle East. I can't imagine that the invasion is seen as much else than the US barging in and shouting for everyone else to bend over for Western democracy.

Iraq pretty much is in a civil war already, anyway. If it isn't, it's only because there aren't two organised sides fighting each other for possession of their country. There's certainly no lack of militas killing each other and anyone not directly in their gang. If the US truly wishes to solve the troubles they greatly contributed to causing, soldiers most likely aren't the solution.

North Korea's nukes aren't much of a threat and they only have them because they want to be in the big boys' tree house. A lot of smaller countries that aren't on the best terms with the US want nuclear weaponry so that the US at least have to be polite to them for being able to kill a city or three. There's also the whole extreme poverty and famine thing going on in North Korea. They weren't getting enough attention before but now the aid is rolling in. Relatively speaking, anyway. Not that North Korea's troubles aren't self-inflicted by the worst government in the world...


Regarding Egypt, they're pretty much the most benevolent dictatorship on the planet. Still a dictatorship, though.

and what's wrong with a dictatorship, if the dictator is a benevolent one?

Tammuz wrote:and what's wrong with a dictatorship, if the dictator is a benevolent one?

As long as you're nice to your people, any form of government works.

EDIT: Egypt isn't a dictatorship. It's a semi-presidential republic. Meaning both a President and Prime Minister are in charge.

Shadowman wrote:The problem is, what would've happened if we let Saddam continue? Kim Jong Il developed Nuclear stuff. What's would've stopped Saddam?

Probably the same thing that stopped him from before. Don't you think he would have made them before 2003 if he could? Maybe not. That is an assumption, I know, but I stand by it.

Shadowman wrote:Then there's the fact that we forced them into Democracy. It seems wrong, right? Actually, it's a good idea. If we didn't let them choose someone not crazy, then someone just like Saddam (Possibly worse, possibly better, I can't really say) would've come into power. Then they would've developed nuclear weapons.

How do you know they would have?

And, more importantly, how do you know they will choose someone not crazy, or already have? Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army had (have?) a lot of support and control in the new government. al-Maliki knew he opposed the US, and could very easily have been turning a blind eye to violence the Mahdi did to US troops.

In other words, these people are not saints, just because someone is elected doesn't mean he is perfect. We as Americans should know that by now.

Shadowman wrote:And then there's the "no exit strategy" problem. This isn't just about not thinking ahead. We know that if we pull out now, Iraq would be thrust into a violent civil war. If this happens, there's a good chance they'd go back to a Dictatorship. That's how 9 out of 10 Dictatorships start!

That is very true. It's a Mexican Standoff is what it is. If we leave, civil war, if we stay, regular war. I blame the Bible Belt, but that's me.

Shadowman wrote:That's about all I have. I still don't like Bush that much, but now he just seems like a president who was put into a less-than-favorable situation by some less-than-decent men.

That's kind of how I see him. I don't think he's stupid, or even really hate him. Not any more than I hate people like him (super conservative Christians), which is more of a strong dislike.

Bush is a recovering alchoholic. Hell, a recovering coke-head. The only way he has stayed sane and lived a normal life all these years is by adhering to a one-track, this is the way it's gotta be, mentality. He can't admit he was wrong about the war, because then he admits to weakness in himself, which will undo his entire world.

It's not an excuse, but it's a better explanation than OMG teh Hitler!!!!11 or that he's a tool of a vast conspiracy.

Tammuz wrote:and what's wrong with a dictatorship, if the dictator is a benevolent one?

That's like saying "and what's wrong with being poor, if everything is free?"

It doesn't work that way. Dictators aren't benevolent. They are a one-man ruling body. They are human. They are stressed, and they are prejudiced, jaded, and angry by the circumstances preceding their rule.

You are free and safe as long as he likes you. Crimes do not have to be commited for you to be captured in the night and thrown feet-first into a meat grinder or acid pool. If your father or brother or boss was against the big man, you're screwed.


And it just occured to me, that maybe you were joking. Let's hope so.

no i wasn't joking, I was just curious over Kjell's "still a dictatorship comment", seems to imply that dictatorship is an inherently bad form of government, i agree that humans are corrupt, but doesn't that indicate that a human are inherently bad, and not the form of government?

and what's wrong with being poor if everything is free, can you be poor if everything is free?

Dark Zarak wrote:

Tammuz wrote:and what's wrong with a dictatorship, if the dictator is a benevolent one?

That's like saying "and what's wrong with being poor, if everything is free?"

It doesn't work that way. Dictators aren't benevolent. They are a one-man ruling body. They are human. They are stressed, and they are prejudiced, jaded, and angry by the circumstances preceding their rule.

You are free and safe as long as he likes you. Crimes do not have to be commited for you to be captured in the night and thrown feet-first into a meat grinder or acid pool. If your father or brother or boss was against the big man, you're screwed.


And it just occured to me, that maybe you were joking. Let's hope so.

I look at things this way.

You're the dictator of a country. You tolerate no crimes on your people, killing those who commit crimes. Thus you no longer have any crime in your country.

You provide the people with everything they need. You make this country rich through some import or another, we'll go with technology.

Your people love you.

Now, some other country comes barging in saying "you should be democratic" you get thrown out of power and someone is elected president.

Soon after crime and violence start plaguing the country, with the threat of death no longer above them and only the threat of trial and imprisonment left things can get chaotic.

People are scared to leave their houses due to the violence. The once peaceful country is torn asunder.

Now, in that situation, a dictatorship can infact be a good thing.

And for those up to par. Yes, I did infact mimic that example from Dr.Doom's rule over Latveria.

Did Doctor Doom have your wife or daughter raped in front of you to get a confession?

Did Doctor Doom punish entire town, sending women and children off to camps and capturing and torturing men as young as 13, because of a failed assassination by just a few men?

Did Doctor Doom have two sons that were frequent rapists and tortured the Latveria Olympic athletes when they came home without the gold? Kicking concrete balls, dragging across gravel and thrown into sewage?

Did Doctor Doom offer his own daughters pardon, but without protection, resulting in their husbands dying in a silly clan fued?


Let's not use comic-book simplifications to argue real world problems.


Saddam was a horrible man. His execution was a farce, but it was still justice. They convicted him on the grounds of the Dujail massacre in 1982.

And Uday? Oh God, I never thought a man so demonic could exist outside of a story. I am literally glad he's dead, and remember laughing at crass jokes Leno made while showing the picture of his bloody body under the sheet. The really scares me that I could feel that, but read up on the guy.

No, dictators are not cool. Give me one example of a dictator that everyone loved. A real dictator.

Dark Zarak wrote:Did Doctor Doom have your wife or daughter raped in front of you to get a confession?

Did Doctor Doom punish entire town, sending women and children off to camps and capturing and torturing men as young as 13, because of a failed assassination by just a few men?

Did Doctor Doom have two sons that were frequent rapists and tortured the Latveria Olympic athletes when they came home without the gold? Kicking concrete balls, dragging across gravel and thrown into sewage?

Did Doctor Doom offer his own daughters pardon, but without protection, resulting in their husbands dying in a silly clan fued?


Let's not use comic-book simplifications to argue real world problems.


Saddam was a horrible man. His execution was a farce, but it was still justice. They convicted him on the grounds of the Dujail massacre in 1982.

And Uday? Oh God, I never thought a man so demonic could exist outside of a story. I am literally glad he's dead, and remember laughing at crass jokes Leno made while showing the picture of his bloody body under the sheet. The really scares me that I could feel that, but read up on the guy.

No, dictators are not cool. Give me one example of a dictator that everyone loved. A real dictator.

Granted, dictators are dicks, most if not all we've known are evil. But, the example still stands to a fact where a dictatorship would still be better if the dictator was benevolent.

The whole "give me one example of a dictator that everyone loved" is an impossible task. It's like asking "name one President that everyone loved." Not everyone will like a person.

A dictatorship could indeed be very benevolent. Communism could work, too. Neither have very good track records. These are, in fact, so bad that one can pretty much assume that any new dictatorship or communist nation is a rather poopy place to live in. If enough time passes you will one day be proven wrong, naturally, but it's safe enough to make the assumption that the country in question isn't a place you'd want to move to.

Kjell wrote:A dictatorship could indeed be very benevolent. Communism could work, too. Neither have very good track records. These are, in fact, so bad that one can pretty much assume that any new dictatorship or communist nation is a rather poopy place to live in. If enough time passes you will one day be proven wrong, naturally, but it's safe enough to make the assumption that the country in question isn't a place you'd want to move to.

How is anything good when you give up personal freedoms? Isn't that what everyone was going on about when Bush inacted the Patriot act? I find it extremely laughable about the one-sidedness of it all. Communism only works on paper, the reason they have bad track records is because they are inherently flawed with the practical application. Don't kid yourself, socialism and communism are only trade-offs for personal freedoms, and tend to keep the general population dumb and docile.

But that's my point. It is possible for dictatorships and communism to actually work. On paper. Y'know, if everyone involved is in on it all and want it to be like that.

In reality, well... As I said, the track records of either are less than stellar.

question; what the difference between a monotheistic religeon and a dictatorship?

The religion is generally not as bound to a geographic area as the dictatorship. Furthermore, the adherents of the religion may be citizens of several different countries and their spiritual leaders may be perfectly happy with this fact.

It is fairly true that the followers of a strict religion would generally prefer to live in a single religiously based nation, though. However, far from all will actually take action towards this goal.

but does not a single being dictate what you can and cannot do, and likewise adminster judgment and punishments

what's the difference between saddam and god except magnatude of power?

One is corporeal and currently dead. The other is anything from all-pervasive to nonexisting.

But yes, a monotheistic religion can be seen as a dictatorship of the mind. There are no phantasms that will come and break your fingers if you do not adhere as strictly as the faith demands, however.

Kjell wrote:One is corporeal and currently dead. The other is anything from all-pervasive to nonexisting.

But yes, a monotheistic religion can be seen as a dictatorship of the mind. There are no phantasms that will come and break your fingers if you do not adhere as strictly as the faith demands, however.

and what of hells? oblivion, punishment for all time? personally broken fingers seems a little less harsh then say eternal damnation.

What bugs me most about Iraq is people justifying going there because of Sadam's Regime and his killing and opressing people. What about the other 50+ dictators in the world killing people off for trivial reasons? It's because they had conviently placed oil fields.

It's all BS to me.

Neko wrote:What bugs me most about Iraq is people justifying going there because of Sadam's Regime and his killing and opressing people. What about the other 50+ dictators in the world killing people off for trivial reasons? It's because they had conviently placed oil fields.

It's all BS to me.

Another bastard of a human being is dead-- that's good enough for me...

Although another 50+ dead bastards would be better.

Kjell wrote:But that's my point. It is possible for dictatorships and communism to actually work. On paper. Y'know, if everyone involved is in on it all and want it to be like that.

In reality, well... As I said, the track records of either are less than stellar.

I have to agree with this. On paper, they can work, if everyone involved wants it. Part of the reason they fall apart in reality is because dissention grows, there are people who are unhappy with the situations, etc.

Dark Zarak wrote:Did Doctor Doom have your wife or daughter raped in front of you to get a confession?

Did Doctor Doom punish entire town, sending women and children off to camps and capturing and torturing men as young as 13, because of a failed assassination by just a few men?

Did Doctor Doom have two sons that were frequent rapists and tortured the Latveria Olympic athletes when they came home without the gold? Kicking concrete balls, dragging across gravel and thrown into sewage?

Did Doctor Doom offer his own daughters pardon, but without protection, resulting in their husbands dying in a silly clan fued?

The thing with this is, in Senor Hugo's example, the dictator didn't do any of these things, which is why Hugo said it would work. And it would, if the dictator was truly as Hugo described, and the people loved him/her.

Socialism can only work on paper. The curse and blessing of being human is the fact that "I am I". Socialism works for the betterment of the whole, but as soon as someone says, "I want this" They start breaking the system.

A dictatorship works by fear. There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. That is why Iraq is so F#ck'd Up. The people were held in place by fear. Once they loss their fear of a government reprisal, they decided to do whatever they wanted to do. And don't think it wouldn't be the same over here. With no government control, people will do whatever they want, I am I.

The truth of the matter is there has yet to be a perfect government. Don't get me wrong, I love being in a Democracy, because I can say what I am currently saying. However, with the Patriot Act and similar covert operations, who knows if we are currently being monitored for civil disobedience.

The worst part of most governments is the illogical religion pushing them. Religion has no place in government. This is because no one religion can cover everyone. Sure there are good ideals, but what applies to me, does not necessarily apply to you.

A true strong government must make laws and apply them evenly to everyone, currently, we do not have that. Currently no one has that.

DJDrew&ScoobyDoo wrote:Socialism can only work on paper. The curse and blessing of being human is the fact that "I am I". Socialism works for the betterment of the whole, but as soon as someone says, "I want this" They start breaking the system.

A true strong government must make laws and apply them evenly to everyone, currently, we do not have that. Currently no one has that.

You're right, we don't have that, and nobody has that. So I find it rather ironic that people want socialism so badly. I don't think they truly understand what happens when socialist elements start being implimented (such as universal healthcare). It all looks good until it's enacted, and by then, you've already given up your individual rights to choose what's best for yourself.

I really have mixed emotions on Universal Healthcare. On one hand, everyone should have healthcare, but why should that mean that anyone else gets less efficient healthcare than someone else.

Ideally, everyone would have the same plan, across the board. However, in reality, Joe Millionaire will want even better coverage than poor tiny Tim. And since our economy and basic lifestyles are based upon Capitalism, doctor's will want to make more $$, if Joe Millionaire will pay top dollar, why should the doctor treat poor tiny Tim who has the government paying the lowest possible cost.

So then you ask, who decides what should cost what, and basically, you are back to where we are now.

The answer will not work in a Capitalist society. But in an ideal world, the people who actually make a difference will make the most money, i.e. teachers, public defenders, HRS, doctors who work on poor, etc...