There’s something important that needs to be said, but I haven’t read anywhere. Not even nearly five years after 9/11. But don’t worry – this won’t take long.
Every time a dictator is deposed, it’s a good thing. Every. Damn. Time.
I concur, doctor.
Again, we agree. Why are you Republican, again?
To borrow Scott Adams’ unwieldy acronym BOCTAOE (but of course there are obvious exceptions)
2 examples from the 70s and 80s, The Shah of Iran (who though friendly to the west, was still a despot) was deposed in favor of Ayatollah Khomeini.
2nd the Soviet backed puppets in Afghanistan being deposed in favor of a leadership vacuum that eventually lead to the rise of the Taliban.
Getting rid of despots is always a good thing, but (and I hate damning buts, but sometimes they are necessary) some consideration must be paid to the conditions that follow and encourage in every possible way that despots aren’t followed by despots.
So you could say that it’s always a good thing when a despot is replaced by a democratic government, but that doesn’t always happen.
(but then there wasn’t a Bush Doctrine putting the full force of American diplomacy, and if needed military behind that proposition, so the mistakes of the Cold War (accepting despots if we think they are friendly) will be avoided)
Kiril: He’s a republican (actually, are you, Stephen…?) because he also thinks guys like Castro, Saddam, Ho, Mao, Kruschev, Pot, Che, Mugabe, Taylor, Deng and Stalin have to go, too (all of those guys have been vociferously defended by Democrats).
XWL: double BOCTAOE. There’s an advantage to deposing a dictator in the most gruesome fashion, regardless what he’s followed by. The more of those monsters who rot in their tighty-whiteys on camera or are dragged through the streets and hung from light poles, the less of them you’ll get.
There’re many reasons why the Romans salted the fields of their enemies.
On the other hand, the more of them who end up living life out long and tidy, like Castro – or even Milosevic – the more likely you’ll get them. Thugs understand violent repercussions. They deal in it. What turns the street thug away from a life of crime isn’t a sudden Damascus of wisdom and loving-kindness, it’s the realization that they’re going to get it themselves. And maybe their kids, too.
But, but… what about cultural continuity and regional stability?
XWL, the Afghanistan example is actually quite debatable. Denying the USSR a client state in the region had some strategic value. More important was the value of a humiliating (and costly) defeat of the USSR, which was one of the factors that eventually led to its dissolution. Difficult as it is to believe with hindsight, the Soviet bloc was substantially more dangerous than a few nutjob Wahabbis and their puppet government.
| VIEW MOBILE SITE
Copyright © 2005-2015 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000051f