Posted on 08/16/2002 12:37:18 PM PDT by rightwing2
Not my opinion. Iraq is an authoritarian state.
TomAYto, tomAHto....
Not if you have the misfortune of living in a totalitarian state. Do you even know the difference between an authoritarian and totalitarian state?
I don't reckon that political prisoners being tortured in basements are too interested in the fine distinction you make between the two slightly different governmental characterizations. As you said before, he's a "brutal dictator". That's not enough for ya? Well, can't please everyone....
Anyway, do you remember what your point was? I think it went something like this: you conceded practically everything I'd said about the date between the Foundationer and the Iraqi, that you had no factual basis on which to doubt it. Then you resorted to the last refuge of an FR poster (realizing you had no real argument to offer, you just accused me of being Not Really Conservative. Oh the horror!). It's not that war with Iraq would be wrong, or bad (you haven't been terribly convincing on these points). Whether Hussein is a "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" is a mere sideshow relating only to whether you'll allow me to compare Iraq to the USSR (and honestly, I really don't see why not). But forget all that: My real sin, apparently, boils down to being Not Really Conservative in your eyes.
But if being "conservative" is inconsistent with opposing totalitarian - OR AUTHORITARIAN, take your pick! - regimes, then what can I say. Mea culpa. I'm "not a conservative" as you define it, I guess. Bravo, what a great point you have made!
Is that it?
Hardly slightly different. A totalitarian regime seeks to gain absolute and centralized control over all aspects of daily life. For example, North Koreans are forbidden to think “individual” thoughts. Authoritarian states are content with a stable status quo and will not interfere in your personal life as long you remain uninvolved in politics.
Friedrich and Brzezinski have identified six specific characteristics of totalitarian regimes: an all-encompassing ideology, a single party, use of coercive powers to accomplish goals of the state, a monopoly of communications, a monopoly of weapons, and a centrally controlled economy.
A fairly significant distinction
Anyway, do you remember what your point was? I think it went something like this: you conceded practically everything I'd said about the date between the Foundationer and the Iraqi, that you had no factual basis on which to doubt it.
You can make that claim a dozen more times and you will be wrong a dozen more times.
Then you resorted to the last refuge of an FR poster (realizing you had no real argument to offer, you just accused me of being Not Really Conservative. Oh the horror!). It's not that war with Iraq would be wrong, or bad (you haven't been terribly convincing on these points). Whether Hussein is a "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" is a mere sideshow relating only to whether you'll allow me to compare Iraq to the USSR (and honestly, I really don't see why not). But forget all that: My real sin, apparently, boils down to being Not Really Conservative in your eyes.
Your real sin is the lack of a rationale for attacking Iraq. In a previous post you called for the use of American military force to remove every authoritarian and totalitarian leader, even though you had no idea there was a difference between the two regime types. I correctly stated that conservatives do not traditionally support the use of the military as a global cop. Conservatives have supported military intervention in the internal affairs of other states for geopolitical reasons (i.e., prevent the spread of communism). That military intervention usually involved support for right-wing authoritarian states or insurgencies. If most conservatives supported your position, then we would not have supported the Shah, Marcos, and Somoza.
But if being "conservative" is inconsistent with opposing totalitarian - OR AUTHORITARIAN, take your pick! - regimes, then what can I say. Mea culpa. I'm "not a conservative" as you define it, I guess. Bravo, what a great point you have made!
I think that you are a conservative. I also think you can not find a rationale for an invasion of Iraq that is not rooted in the 9/11 attack. Thus, you are left with the "remove Hussein because he is a bad guy" rationale, which is inconsistent with conservativism.
Your words: "brutal dictator". That's not enough?
Your real sin is the lack of a rationale for attacking Iraq.
I already told you my rationale: to get rid of Hussein. I'm sorry that's not enough to personally convince you but frankly I don't really give a rat's ass. I never set out to convert you to the pro-war side in the first place, just to correct your strange misconceptions about whether you can conclude something about whether Atta and Iraqi met in a restaurant in Prague based on having read lots of books.
In a previous post you called for the use of American military force to remove every authoritarian and totalitarian leader,
I also said "where practical". Strange, you left that part out. It's quite crucial.
even though you had no idea there was a difference between the two regime types.
I know the difference full well, I just didn't think it was all that relevant to our discussion. You really think the true mark of a Real Conservative is that he supports force against Totalitarian regimes but not Authoritarian ones? That's effectively what you have been saying to me the past few posts. Bee-zarre.
I correctly stated that conservatives do not traditionally support the use of the military as a global cop.
Actually, you haven't used this combination of words on this thread at all. If you had said only this I would have agreed with you, of course.
Conservatives have supported military intervention in the internal affairs of other states for geopolitical reasons (i.e., prevent the spread of communism).
And, now, to prevent the spread of Radical Isla.... ahem, I mean "terrorism". So, your point?
If most conservatives supported your position, then we would not have supported the Shah, Marcos, and Somoza.
Sure we would've. To fight against communists and/or Radical Islamicists. Just like now. What's your point?
Thus, you are left with the "remove Hussein because he is a bad guy" rationale, which is inconsistent with conservativism.
If you say so. I'm supposed to care whether you think I'm a Real Conservative.......why, exactly?
By the way, "because he's a bad guy" is shorthand for, "because he is dangerous to us". Just so you know.
Glad to know you won't be dissapointed because you have not been convincing.
I also said "where practical". Strange, you left that part out. It's quite crucial.
A very ambiguous escape clause.
I know the difference [between the two regime types] full well, I just didn't think it was all that relevant to our discussion.
Yeah, right... Is that why you repeatedly referred to Iraq as a totalitarian state?
You really think the true mark of a Real Conservative is that he supports force against Totalitarian regimes but not Authoritarian ones? That's effectively what you have been saying to me the past few posts. Bee-zarre.
Aparently you have not been paying attention. As I stated in an earlier post, conservatives do not traditionally support the use of the military as a global cop. Conservatives support military intervention when the use of military force in the internal affairs of another state benefits us. Why do you think the Reagan and Bush (41) admionistrations befriended Hussein while he was gassing his people and invading Iran?
Actually, you haven't used this combination of words on this thread at all. If you had said only this I would have agreed with you, of course.
Question: What role do you think the United States would be playing within the international community if we used our military to remove authoritarian and totalitarian governments, when practical?
Answer: Global cop
And, now, to prevent the spread of Radical Isla.... ahem, I mean "terrorism". So, your point?
Gee, in an earlier post you said that your rationale for removing Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism. You didn't lie did you?
Sure we would've. To fight against communists and/or Radical Islamicists. Just like now. What's your point?
And I thought 9/11 had nothing to do with your support of an invasion of Iraq...
If you say so. I'm supposed to care whether you think I'm a Real Conservative.......why, exactly?
Are you claiming not to be a conservative?
By the way, "because he's a bad guy" is shorthand for, "because he is dangerous to us". Just so you know.
How is Iraq a threat to our national security?
Warning: You ruled out terrorism in an earlier post.
Not in any post to me, you didn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have argued.
Conservatives support military intervention when the use of military force in the internal affairs of another state benefits us. Why do you think the Reagan and Bush (41) admionistrations befriended Hussein while he was gassing his people and invading Iran?>
And why do you think Bush (43) will (presumably) attack Hussein? Same reason. Your point?
Question: What role do you think the United States would be playing within the international community if we used our military to remove authoritarian and totalitarian governments, when practical? Answer: Global cop
Not really. Presumably a "global cop" - if that phrase means anything intelligible - would have to "arrest", say, China. Yet I personally don't think that would be practical, so I don't advocate any such thing. So you see I'm not saying the US should be "global cop". Sorry for the confusion.
Gee, in an earlier post you said that your rationale for removing Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism. You didn't lie did you?
No, because I didn't even say what you think I said. (Gee and I said it several times too.) What I said was that my rationale had nothing to do with 9/11.
[Sure we would've. To fight against communists and/or Radical Islamicists. Just like now. What's your point?] And I thought 9/11 had nothing to do with your support of an invasion of Iraq...
It doesn't. Where do you see 9/11 mentioned in my post? (In particular, in the passage you quoted from me which I've helpfully reproduced above in square brackets.)
Are you claiming not to be a conservative?
I'm merely claiming not to care whether you think I'm "really" a conservative. What else is one to do in the face of such a weak and pathetic argument as, "If you disagree with me, then I accuse you of being Not Really A Conservative. So there!" ??
Yeah, right... Is that why you repeatedly referred to Iraq as a totalitarian state?
By the way, "because he's a bad guy" is shorthand for, "because he is dangerous to us". Just so you know.
How is Iraq a threat to our national security?
Yeah, right... Is that why you repeatedly referred to Iraq as a totalitarian state?
By the way, "because he's a bad guy" is shorthand for, "because he is dangerous to us". Just so you know.
How is Iraq a threat to our national security?
Still waiting to hear how you knew the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian systems and managed to mislabel Iraq as a totalitarian system.
Still waiting to hear how Iraq is a threat to our national security.
Or maybe you're just done? Gawd let's hope so.
Did you ever have a real point to make to me? As I understand our conversation, where we stand is this: I am required to agree with you that we shouldn't fight a war against Hussein, otherwise you threaten to call me Not Really Conservative.
Is that it? Because, I'm sorry to break it to you but I can live with that, really, I can.
Buh-bye.
Because you conveniently failed to address these questions.
So once again...
Still waiting to hear how you knew the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian systems and managed to mislabel Iraq as a totalitarian system.
Still waiting to hear how Iraq is a threat to our national security.
Is that it? Because, I'm sorry to break it to you but I can live with that, really, I can.
I can live with the reality that you lied when said you already knew the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian systems.
I can live with the reality that you have no rationale for an attack on Iraq that does not involve terrorism.
1. "authoritarian" v. "totalitarian". Let's go through this yet again. Why did this come up? Do you even remember why it came up? (I'll bet you don't.) Here, I'll help you out. I said (or implied, really) that I supported attacking Iraq. You said that this was meddling in "internal affairs" of another country and so I couldn't be a real conservative, then. I mentioned the analogy of the Cold War, where we did exactly that to the cheers of conservatives, in resisting the USSR. So now, what you're trying to say - all you're trying to say - is that Iraq and USSR are somehow fundamentally different because while the latter was totalitarian, the former is "merely" authoritarian.
To sum up your apparent position: whether it's ok to support attacking Iraq hinges crucially on whether their governmental arrangement is called by one word or another. But, don't you see? I don't care!
Call it "authoritarian" if you want, be my guest. Call it "kwyjibo-itarian" for all I care. I don't care how you want to classify Iraq in some grand taxonomy of governmental systems, I still would support a war against it. And your only comeback to this is that this would make me Not Conservative in your eyes (but, again, I don't care). Whether we attack Iraq is not some stupid game of semantics and neither do my opinions hinge crucially on whether others will allow me into their special club labeled "conservative".
So hell, let me try this. For the sake of argument, and to play the contrarian, I'm going to now insist that IRAQ IS TOO TOTALITARIAN. IS TOO! IS TOO! I'm going to (pretend to) insist that I think that it is. I hereby assert that Iraq is "totalitarian" rather than "authoritarian". Semantically, and in the grand taxonomy of political systems, I now and forever label Hussein's Iraq as a "totalitarian" government. In my opinion.
So, here's your comeback: "You're WRONG. It's not totalitarian! Look, here's a dictionary, and here's something that Zbiwnginwngigeew Brziwieneggisinksi wrote in 1977, and the Ba'athists only kill X% of their political opponents rather than Y%...". Ok, I accept that that's your comeback. You think I'm "wrong". You win the semantics argument. Great comeback. You win the Great Argument Of How To Classify Iraq In A Political Taxonomy.
But, was that even our argument? I mean, what the hell do you think you've proved? That we Shouldn't Attack Iraq because of some semantics? Hell no. So really, what do you think you would prove by winning this "totalitarian" v. "authoritarian" argument? I'm willing to concede it to you just to get you the hell off my back, because even if you "win" that argument, so freakin' what?
It's not an argument about whether to attack Iraq. It's an argument about how to label them. Do you even understand the difference, and how far we've drifted from the original discussion? I'll bet not.
2. re: How Iraq is dangerous.
Answer: They makey big deadly weapons what can be used to kill us and suchlike.
So are you ever going to get to your point?
The point is you lied when you falsely claimed that you knew the difference between an authoritarian and totalitarian state.
Answer: They makey big deadly weapons what can be used to kill us and suchlike.
So does China...
"Lied"? A little dramatic. Sloppy use of language, perhaps. (And anyway, I'm still insisting that Iraq is too totalitarian, so there: in the Great Semantics Debate, we have a difference of opinion. "Lied"?)
So, that having been settled: your point is...? (drumroll)
You didn't have a clue as to the difference between the two types of political systems. Not wanting to appear stupid, you resorted to lying.
By the way, no one that knows anything about political systems considers Iraq to be a totalitarian state.
This is not interventionism, this is resisting the illegal unappologetic proselytism of enemies at home and to their neighbors.
So, that having been settled: your point is...? (drumroll)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.