NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't that Realpolitik? Or are you asserting that nations should not act in their own self-interest?

Absolutely, we should act in our own self-interest. However, I think what is in our interest is to support democratic principles even when we don't like the outcome they bring. I think it's fair to dislike (a) democratically elected prospect(s). I don't think it's appropriate to demean the process by which they were elected provided that process was legal. It's a tight rope and our elected officials need to learn the importance of balance.

You make Realpolitik sound like a virtue.

Democracy and freedom should be in the US's own self-interest. Only some minds get confused about that.
It's not a virtue.

It's a natural law.

Not conceived by artifice. Not clouded with delusions of morality.

It's not a virtue.

It's a natural law.

Not conceived by artifice. Not clouded with delusions of morality.

Bismark and Kissinger are not gods.

Its a theory, an approach. Not a natural law.

Bismark and Kissinger are not gods.

Its a theory, an approach. Not a natural law.
It sure explains far more than any other theory.

It's not a virtue.

It's a natural law.

Not conceived by artifice. Not clouded with delusions of morality.

But that's the thing, no matter how delusional, shouldn't we aim for that level of moral consistency? Equal treatment is artificial and delusional, but shouldn't we as a society at least pretend it's possible? Shouldn't we aim for the bullseye even if we know we can only hit the second ring?

It's a natural law.


Pffft. About as natural as Michael Jackson's nose.

Democratically elected governments are fine - we should support democracy abroad.

But it's unreasonable to think that we should support democratically elected governments everywhere, even if those governments hate America and would attack us if they were able.

If we have a choice between a friendly dictator or an unfriendly democratically elected government I think it's a bad idea to knee-jerk support the democratically elected government.

Of course, we should promote democracy as much as possible, but each decision should be made on a case by case basis.

Getting back to the point of this thread, Carter's decision to not back up the Shah was a bad one.

Democratically elected governments are fine - we should support democracy abroad.

But it's unreasonable to think that we should support democratically elected governments everywhere, even if those governments hate America and would attack us if they were able.

If we have a choice between a friendly dictator or an unfriendly democratically elected government I think it's a bad idea to take knee-jerk support the democratically elected government.
Of course, we should promote democracy as much as possible, but each decision should be made on a case by case basis.

Getting back to the point of this thread, Carter's decision to not back up the Shah was a bad one.

'Democratic Peace' theory my friend, makes your point irrelevant.

Pffft. About as natural as Michael Jackson's nose.

Some people consider it natural law to push for your own society even if the overall group suffers. They interpret this to be 'survival of the fittest'. Unfortunately, survival of the fittest refers to the species not the individual. If I live in a herd of animals, it's very likely that I might give my life in protection of the herd.

If one wants to translate to international politics, then our species is a republic and we should press for the survival of republics themselves moreso than just the survival of this republic only.

'Democratic Peace' theory my friend, makes your point irrelevant.

Agreed, but I don't think that Democratic Peace theory is completely accurate.

I think its reasonable to say that democracies are LESS likely to go to war with each other. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that they never go to war with each other, or they're inherently peaceful.

At the end of the day, the decision to support a government has to be made on a case by case basis.

More left-wing bullshit. If the Shah was such a "dictator," why did he personally pardon the lives of many people who tried to assassinate him? Why he did implement land reform policies to help the poor, extend the franchise to women, and permit Iranians of all faiths to worship who they chose to? Why, in 1978, did pro-Shah demonstrations draw over 300,000 people? Moreover, calling the Shah a puppet is both completely stupid and has no basis in reality. He was very independent. He was pro-Western, but he also had cordial relations with the U.S.S.R., Romania, Yugoslavia, Red China, and other communist and socialist countries.

He was a scumbag who gave away his countries oil wealth for a quarter of a century so he could have power. They don't get lower than that.


Who cares what they want? Would you rather give them what they want, or what's good for them? If they're stupid enough to want a batshit mullah, should we really let them have it?.

Sad to relate its hard to know whether or not you're being serious.


Then remember Reagan, whose reputation as a cowboy was quite enough to scare the Iranians into releasing the hostages as soon as he was sworn into office.?.

O I remember Ronnie Raygun...with his schmaltz and crap..sponsoring some of the worst regimes in Latin America and talking as if the sun shone out Americas arse...we all hated that bastard....and he "bought" the Iranian hostages back, by the way.

Agreed, but I don't think that Democratic Peace theory is completely accurate.

I think its reasonable to say that democracies are LESS likely to go to war with each other. But I don't think it's reasonable to say that they never go to war with each other, or they're inherently peaceful.

At the end of the day, the decision to support a government has to be made on a case by case basis.

Ah, but in a democracy we have far more people with whom we can excercise diplomacy, but with a dictatorship there is only one. Thus there is a route around a wall in a democracy and only the wall in a dictatorship.

LOL - way to ask him a question that'll get him on a watch list. :)

To be fair, he only approves of someone else doing it, as when he answered

If Bush did that Id get as many friends together as I could, go rob a gun store and high tail it to DC so I could personally do the country a favor and kill the bastard.
by saying
And I would sing your praises, comrade! Vive la Revolution!

That's not quite as bad to the Feds as actually doing the murder, is it? :p

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. People dont like Carter because he is a laberal, and laberals are laberal. That laberal had the nerve to attack persident Bush. The greatest president ever. Nobody likes laberals. Those 49% percent of the country that is laberals can all go move to laberal land, where you can be laberal.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. People dont like Carter because he is a laberal, and laberals are laberal. That laberal had the nerve to attack persident Bush. The greatest president ever. Nobody likes laberals. Those 49% percent of the country that is laberals can all go move to laberal land, where you can be laberal.

Oh pulease. Even I am not that ignorant in politics.

I thought that demographic was teenagers, not folks two years from 30.

If my opinions aren't valid to you now, they won't be valid in twenty years. I'll still be that whippersnapper.

But hey - what the hell do I know about politics. It's only what I do for a living.


Brians Room, I'm sure you won't care, but I'm going with The Lost Planet on this one.

You're 28, and that doesn't make you terribly experienced in the political world (let's put to one side what you actually do that makes you feel like you're in politics). For some kind of perspective, I was married a fair while before you were born. I watched the report on the evening news when Telstar went up. I'm guessing Lost Planet is closer to my age than yours. You may do politics for a living but let's face it, at 28 you're still a fresh-faced youth compared to the people like Reagan or North or Carter. You may well have lobbied politicians whose careers predate your birth.

I'm really glad if, as you say, you always try to be fair and balanced. I believe you try, from what I've seen you write here. I hope you stay like that. And it's a relief to read somebody whose arguments are more than the "yer stoopid!" variety I'm seeing so much of. But I'm not sure you have all your ducks in a row about some of the events being argued here. Only one example, since I don't think Lost Planet or anybody else needs any help from me. You wrote:


Iran-Contra had NOTHING to do with getting the hostages back in 1981. It didn't even come to light until '86, and everything that occurred or was said to have occurred happened on Reagan's watch. The hostages that were being discussed for Iran-Contra were in Lebanon, not in Iran.

Lost Planet already answered you for this and more, so I won't kick a dead horse. But I want to say that's the kind of mistake you won't make in another 5 or 10 years. The date the Iran-Contra scandal was exposed isn't the date when all its key events happened. And allowing key offenders to plead out is a good way to make sure nobody gets embarrassed by too many nasty facts. As was made clear in a BBC documentary some years back on the scandal, Ollie North was allowed to "slide" on aspects of that, and the broadcast gave evidence that included his and Bush Snr's involvement in making sure the timing of the hostage release would humiliate Carter and solidify an image of Reagan as a "strong" leader who would keep Iran from walking all over us.

I've seen a lot of people talk about Carter using the word "weak". I wasn't so sure it's the right word then; I'm even less sure now. The word I'd use is "gentle", and unfortunately for him, and for the rest of the world, "gentleness" is even less of a virtue today in the eyes of most "Americans" and most of the world than it was when he was president. Gentleness is understood badly if at all, and it requires resolute and unwavering teamwork and solidarity to make it work. As you will know from your work, "resolute and unwavering teamwork and solidarity" are qualities in short supply amongst politicians, once you look past narrow party interests and backroom deals. Carter needed a capitol full of people who would have said, "forget the politics, we're all in this together". What he got were people who said, "the sooner we sink this sucker, the sooner we get back to business as usual".

Politics is a power game. Too bad for us all. There's a part of me that would have loved Carter's gentleness to triumph, but 4 years in office just isn't enough time to inspire people to see it. Gandhi couldn't do it that fast, neither could Martin Luther King. It takes time for people to try it, and Carter didn't have time. Shame.

I'll return to my obscurity now and watch as the board collects posts of the "gentleness isn't practical"/"gentleness is for wimps" variety...

The Cold War made for strange politics.


You're right. And it's that "strange politics" that brought us to the edge during the Cold War and has left us with all these nasty messes to clean up now --- if we can.

"strange politics" = "short-sighted, short-term crisis management with nasty long-term consequences".

Just an opinion.