The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost trillions of dollars. What if we had taken every penny of that expense and invested it in say, solar energy? The goal would be to make MidEast oil irrelevant, thus pulling the rug out from under the power of all MidEast dictators. — Hippyhead

Bringing freedom to millions of people is the best foreign aid you can give. The alternative goal of leaving millions in slavery, and adding insult to injury by trying to reduce their standard of living, is a very sad direction to take.

9/11 was an act by non-state actors. Making Middle Eastern countries poorer will not do anything to address the mindset that would kill American civilians instead of protecting them. You need to move the entire world over to being protectors of America, or at the very least neutral. Thanks to 9/11, having hostile individuals is no longer acceptable. I do agree that the hostile governments should be taken down first, as they have the potential to do much more damage than individuals. But don't underestimate your enemy. Individuals proved on 9/11 that they can do major damage too. Just be grateful the helpful Mr Khan didn't give them nukes.

America has been warned just in the nick of time. Now is the time to take off the gloves.

Note that it was necessary to do nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq to prove that it is possible to deliver democracy by force of arms, even to Arabs. But now that we know there is no genetic barrier to worldwide democracy, it is time to liberate the rest of the world.

If you're worried about the cost of war, then stop all other forms of foreign aid and direct it all into wars of liberation which is a gift that keeps on giving. If you're worried about the American lives lost freeing others, then hire Gurkhas. Just get the job done. Or face a nuclear 9/11.

Communist China is the biggest dictatorship in human history. A competition between them and democratic countries may be the defining political issue of the 21st century. Point being, Iraq might be seen as small potatoes, Afghanistan even smaller. Should we perhaps stand back from a past we can do nothing about and focus on the future big picture? — Hippyhead

Every time we knock over a country like Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran, we get an allied democracy. I can't think of a better way of isolating China than having the entire rest of the world as liberal democracies, ready to turn the screws on China when the time is right. We can't directly attack China, the cost is too high, so let's focus on turning everyone else.

Bringing freedom to millions of people is the best foreign aid you can give. — Paul Edwards

Ok, you make good points.

To counter, the dictators will be easier to knock off once they're bankrupt. Russia, the Mid East, Iran, Venezuela, all heavily dependent on oil income.

And it's got to be done anyway.

To counter, the dictators will be easier to knock off once they're bankrupt.

This may be technically true, but I don't think it is right to make life miserable for those unlucky enough to have been born into dictatorships. If I was in that position, I wouldn't want my life to be made miserable for years, I'd want an immediate liberation. So long as the US is able to fight totally lopsided wars, with allies no less, it seems the best course of action is to do so immediately. There is no need (anymore) to hang around to do nation-building, so you can be in and out in 3.5 weeks for the loss of 100 allied lives. The alternative is a potential nuclear 9/11.

Russia, the Mid East, Iran, Venezuela, all heavily dependent on oil income.

Well I don't consider Russia to be a dictatorship. It's just a low-quality democracy. We need to win them over diplomatically. America is at fault for recognizing Kosovo there. It was totally unnecessary. The Kosovars were perfectly safe with NATO troops on their territory. There was no need to poke Russia in the eye. And betray it for that matter. No NATO lives were lost thanks to Russia.

So what this answer once again demonstrates is an unwillingness to try to understand someone else's position. You're not qualified to debate this subject if you don't understand the context.

So what this answer once again demonstrates is an unwillingness to try to understand someone else's position.

I'm not sure that is an accurate statement. I spend a hell of a lot of effort trying to understand why people don't come to the same conclusions as me, and have documented that here. That represents DECADES of investigation.

As just one example, you could be laboring under the "Just World Hypothesis" where you assume that there must be a good reason why an Iraqi man was having his tongue cut out, even though you can't quite put your finger on it.

In this case (correct me if I'm wrong), I assume the mental block is that you see the United Nations as some sort of moral authority (despite the large number of dictators it includes) and you have outsourced your own sense of right and wrong to them, instead of having confidence that you can do a better job than a bunch of dictators and other immoral has-beens.

If you pare this back to a pure philosophical discussion, where the whole world is full of humans, some of whom are being raped, what is your philosophical course of action? There's no such thing as the UN unless you create it. Would you create a body of immoral dictators? Sure, there may be a strategic reason to do so. But you are free to ignore it when you have a suitable dictator-free set of morals to choose instead.

We can argue strategy though. What is the strategic thing to do in a world with nuclear-armed dictators?

So much effort you don't understand just war theory. Whatever. I graduated in the subject and apparently my 6 months studying it in depth with decades of continued interest got me a lot further because I'm not trying to sell a conclusion I've been walking around with for decades. You're only convincing yourself that you think you know what you're talking about. The exercise you do though is playing the tormented genius and whine "why doesn't anybody understand me?" and then proceed to classify everybody's shortcomings as reasons not to engage their points. You need to accept your interlocutors are as rational as you are (if not more so) and engage their arguments instead of raising straw men every time you're challenged.

Again, this didn't answer my question. I'm done Paul. You don't listen to what I say and don't answer the questions I ask. Don't bother replying.

You need to accept your interlocutors are as rational as you are (if not more so) and engage their arguments instead of raising straw men every time you're challenged.

As far as I know, I have answered all your arguments. It is you who insists that "Just War Theory" as it currently stands is perfect and doesn't need to be updated for the case of the clearly just 2003 Iraq war.

It's not just me who is explaining this very simple concept to you. Hippyhead has given you a perfectly good analogy too. But you have a dogmatic belief that Just War Theory as it currently stands trumps the clear analogy of responding to a 911 call. Even to the point where you can watch video of a man having his tongue cut out and simply just yawn and quote Just War Theory to him.

Again a total misrepresentation. I asked if you knew the Just War Theory. You said you read a Wiki. I shared a summary of its history and advised a book by Walzer as a good start to get a grasp on the subject. Exactly no where have I said that the Just War Theory is what it is and should be. In fact, I already pointed out an issue with Walzer's theory. I've alluded as to the largest gap in your thinking in that you don't take sovereignty (or right authority) into account. I have explained why intent is important by analogy as you won't be able to tell the difference between a purposeful murder and accident otherwise. I'm trying to get you to see, with tiny fucking babysteps, which blind spots you have and all I get is "muh, mental blocks!" as a pathetic excuse for not listening. So you can yawn all you want but you basically have no clue what you're talking about.

I've alluded as to the largest gap in your thinking in that you don't take sovereignty (or right authority) into account.

No, that is the largest gap in your thinking. You think that a dictator like Saddam is a rightful authority and respect his "right" to oppress the Iraqi people, even to the point where you yawn at Iraqis having their tongues cut out.

If you read the Russian's blog post here you could see a different way of looking at the exact same world. Perhaps it would be good if you tried to understand your enemy if you wish to defeat him. Tell me what the Russian did wrong when he flipped position. It's a short read.

I have explained why intent is important by analogy

And I have answered that, although I'll come back to you again later after my Russian friend has had a chance to vet it. I already agreed with you that intent is important when it comes to an individual being charged for murder vs manslaughter. But when the correct action is being taken, intent doesn't matter a damn. It's only if bad intent causes a bad action that we should seek to prevent the action being taken. You shouldn't be so super-confident that it isn't you that has a mental block on this.

t's only if bad intent causes a bad action — Paul Edwards

Not that I'm even conceding that Bush had bad intent. He said he believed that God wanted everyone to be free, and he's damn right there, if we postulate a loving god. It's good intent - IF that was even needed.

See, this is why you shouldn't be talking about these things. We're not talking about the authority of Saddam but the country that wants to go to war. Which you'd actually know, if you'd read my earlier historic summary. So you can't claim knowing what the Just War Theory entails and therefore aren't qualified to decide one way or the other whether it's a good theory or not and what parts should be changed or not. You're just demonstrating your ignorance.

But when the correct action is being taken, intent doesn't matter a damn. It's only if bad intent causes a bad action that we should seek to prevent the action being taken. — Paul Edwards

There is no correct action without rightful intent. If I intend to murder you and you happen to be raping someone when I walk in on you with the intent to murder you at the time, it's still murder regardless of the happy outcome. If I walk in on you by happenstance and you're raping someone and I accidentally kill you in the process of defending the victim, only then am I not a murderer.

But yeah, never mind 2000+ years of thinking on criminal law. :snicker:

So you can't claim knowing what the Just War Theory entails and therefore aren't qualified to decide one way or the other whether it's a good theory or not and what parts should be changed or not. You're just demonstrating your ignorance.

Perhaps. But perhaps you are demonstrating that you can't accept fresh thinking on the subject. When you have data such as the very obviously just liberation of Iraq conflicting with the theory, it's time to revisit the theory, rather than trying to manipulate the data to fit the theory.

There is no correct action without rightful intent. If I intend to murder you and you happen to be raping someone when I walk in on you with the intent to murder you at the time, it's still murder regardless of the happy outcome.

Even if you want to call that murder, you should not prevent the murderer from killing the rapist.

But yeah, never minder 2000+ years of thinking on criminal law.

Wars of liberation are a very recent and rare thing. We're still collecting data on how people actually react to that. We still don't even have enough data to be able to predict an Iranian liberation. People are still claiming 99% in opposite directions. The 2000 years is of totally irrelevant wars of conquest.

BTW, I am a programmer by trade, and I came up with a radical new idea (S/380) which the experts couldn't even imagine, and even went so far as to say it would never work. The good thing about computers is that they respond to logic, so MVS/380 became a reality. There are rare humans who are willing to switch worldview in response to cold hard logic, and my Russian friend was one of them. Please read his blog post and tell me where he went wrong.

Hippyhead, over to you for night-shift.

When you have data such as the very obviously just liberation of Iraq conflicting with the theory, it's time to revisit the theory, rather than trying to manipulate the data to fit the theory. — Paul Edwards

I don't have such data because I don't agree with that conclusion. It surely highlights what's going wrong. You assume the Iraq war was a good thing because of whatever nebulous moral feelings you have about the matter and then proceed to justify your feelings by dressing it up in what you want to call a theory but is so far just you sharing your feelings.

The 2000 years is of totally irrelevant wars of conquest. — Paul Edwards

You don't know because you haven't studied it so you're not qualified to make that judgment. That's like me saying C++ is a terrible programming language without ever having programmed in that language. I could be accidentally right but I wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

BTW, I am a programmer by trade, and I came up with a radical new idea (S/380) which the experts couldn't even imagine, and even went so far as to say it would never work. The good thing about computers is that they respond to logic, so MVS/380 became a reality. There are rare humans who are willing to switch worldview in response to cold hard logic, and my Russian friend was one of them. Please read his blog post and tell me where he went wrong. — Paul Edwards

Good for you. Total red herring. It still doesn't stop you from committing fallacies apparently.

This may be technically true, but I don't think it is right to make life miserable for those unlucky enough to have been born into dictatorships. If I was in that position, I wouldn't want my life to be made miserable for years, I'd want an immediate liberation. So long as the US is able to fight totally lopsided wars, with allies no less, it seems the best course of action is to do so immediately. — Paul Edwards

The problem with this approach is what we see in this thread, the undermining of support for such projects. No US administration can just willy nilly do whatever it wants. It requires a good measure of public support to dethrone dictators by force. Consider Vietnam, a bungled mess which crushed the consensus developed by the WWII generation. That fiasco set up a couple of generations of Americans to resist any intervention anywhere.

I think the course we are on right now with Iran is the wiser strategy over the long run.

1) Build the alliance against Iran

2) Bankrupt the regime

3) Patient deterrence

Yes, sanctions have a negative effect on the Iranian people, that's true. But let us not forget they overthrew the Shah in 1979 with no help from anyone. So when they are ready they can do that again.

If an invasion of Iran went FUBAR that's the end of deposing dictators by force for another century. Once we start the necessary shock and awe we become the focus of everyone's concern, and the mullah's get a free pass, and increased support from the Iranian people.

The best weapon we may have is public education. This thread would seem to illustrate we aren't currently doing such a great job of that.

Readers please note, this is a tactical argument, not a moral one.

2) Bankrupt the regime — Hippyhead

How are you going to do that without it causing massive harm to the population?

I feel there are two major misrepresentations of reality in your laying out of things.
1. History of Success
There are many countries which are democracies in no small part to the actions of the US but past the Korean war, really none which came about as a result of a US invasion. Calling Iraq or Afghanistan flourishing democracies is simply incorrect, I looked for a democracy index which would describe them as such but couldn't find one, they all list them as authoritarian states and whether democracy survives is really unclear.

2. Ease of US victory
How long until people put 1 and 1 together? The US has no had an easy time in occupying nations with hostile non-state actors and that's exactly what they're going to get in the African and Middle-eastern authoritarian states. Do you think Iran, the most notorious supporter of militant non-state actors, Iran, with its mountainous geography and both infamous and sizeable anti-US sentiment is going to be a cakewalk for the US?

Despite US interventionism, the world is becoming less democratic and the US is a part of that trend. Military interventionism has such a terrible track record, I don't think you can back up your optimism. For the Iraq war, I think most of the complexity comes from how difficult it has been. Much like Vietnam, I don't oppose aiming to stop the spread of authoritarian regimes like communism but it didn't stop it and instead, it just killed millions. So if someone wants to prevent a repeat of the Vietnam war, can you really say "oh, you like communism then?"? As if all the US has to do to stop communism is precisely what clearly didn't stop communism in Vietnam, military interventionism? You want to do exactly the same thing over and over again until it works?

If we were all planning on liberating the rest of the world — Paul Edwards

Stop right there.

This is your fundamental problem. You perhaps cannot even see it. It's that YOU are going with YOUR plan to LIBERATE somebody, free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression. The objective, the people you liberate are like a damsel in distress, a totally helpless entity, which then YOU then give a plan forwards they have to do. This is simply not the way democracy spreads: the model of Germany and Japan just go that far.

Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand how offensive the idea of a foreign military forces taking over your country and implementing changes to your society as you as an American never have had the threat of it (at least after the 1812 war). Reminds me how the Soviets wanted to liberate us in 1939 using quite the same rhetoric. Lucky that both of my grandfathers came back alive from the war.

For starters, how about not thinking immediately of using military force to liberate / attack a country?

Or you think that would be somehow immoral thing to do?

Expecting Iraqis to be as intelligent and sensible as Americans is the opposite of condescending. — Paul Edwards

That's not what I was saying.

If Americans have difficulties with racial relations when slavery has been abolished a long time ago and segragation laws some 60 years ago, what about countries where those relations have been worse yesterday? You simply cannot assume there aren't huge problems in these societies, which have ended up with dictatorships. It's not as if before everything was just fine until somehow an evil dictator got himself into power and once you have taken away the dictator, democracy could flourish.

This is especially true in Iraq, as we have already seen. The only place where I could see a rather peaceful transition to a democracy and a justice state would be Belarus, if the present dictator would be toppled.

Planning to use military force to oust Lukashenka in Belarus would be playing with the possibility of WW3.

Which reminds me, the best of luck to the Belarussians in ousting their dictator!

I don't have such data because I don't agree with that conclusion. It surely highlights what's going wrong. You assume the Iraq war was a good thing because of whatever nebulous moral feelings you have about the matter — Benkei

It's more I *define* the end of institutionalized rape and mutilation to be a good thing. I don't know how you don't. This is a philosophical question. If in your philosophy you don't think rape is a bad thing, then we will never come to an understanding. I treat it as an axiom.

Have you ever heard of the principle of charity? Can you at least make an effort to engage what I say instead of making stuff up?It doesn't logically follow that because rape is bad every method of combatting it is proper.

How about a society that has surveillance everywhere, not just the streets but in your home too in order to combat rape? Perfectly fine because it will stop rape.

The problem with this approach is what we see in this thread, the undermining of support for such projects. No US administration can just willy nilly do whatever it wants. It requires a good measure of public support to dethrone dictators by force.

Yes, that is what I am trying to do now. Retrospectively explain that the 2003 Iraq war was a good thing, shouldn't be treated as a disaster, and should be repeated.

Yes, sanctions have a negative effect on the Iranian people, that's true. But let us not forget they overthrew the Shah in 1979 with no help from anyone. So when they are ready they can do that again.

The Shah didn't mow the protesters down with automatic weapons. The Mullahs do. What you're asking for is a militarily impossible feat. In WW1 we had *armed* soldiers charging automatic weapons and being defeated. Unarmed civilians have no chance at all. Think Tiananmen Square.

If an invasion of Iran went FUBAR that's the end of deposing dictators by force for another century.

That's why the 2003 Iraq war is so important. We need to reset the count.

The best weapon we may have is public education. This thread would seem to illustrate we aren't currently doing such a great job of that.

Yes, that is what is required, and what I am doing now.

Have you ever heard of the principle of charity?

I looked it up, and that applies both ways.

Can you at least make an effort to engage what I say instead of making stuff up? It doesn't logically follow that because rape is bad every method of combatting it is proper.

I can agree with that. When a 911 call comes in from a Sydney resident, Washington shouldn't just drop a nuke on Sydney. They should use minimal force necessary to respond to the crime. But the objective word there is "respond" rather than "ignore". They shouldn't just ignore the screams of the woman calling 911. Nor should they use sophistry to insist that they have no obligation or even right to respond.

How about a society that has surveillance everywhere, not just the streets but in your home too in order to combat rape? Perfectly fine because it will stop rape.

No, I believe consenting couples have the right to privacy.

Also, even though my Russian friend hasn't engaged yet, I now know how to answer your previous question. When a BAD ACT like killing an innocent person happens, it is necessary to determine the INTENT to find out whether to charge the killer with murder or manslaughter. But when a GOOD ACT is done, intent doesn't actually matter (as to whether you should try to prevent the action or not), although it would certainly be nice if there was a good intent.

But when a GOOD ACT is done, intent doesn't actually matter (as to whether you should try to prevent the action or not), although it would certainly be nice if there was a good intent. — Paul Edwards

And this is where a better understanding of criminal law will come in handy and the wiki pages on that are actually pretty good. You can't have a good act with bad intent. If a corrupt cop steals from a criminal who'd otherwise use it for a crime (without the cop knowing), the cop is still a thief.

If I murder you because I like murdering people and you were on your way to kill someone else (but I didn't know), I'm still a murderer even though I saved someone else.

1. History of Success
There are many countries which are democracies in no small part to the actions of the US but past the Korean war, really none which came about as a result of a US invasion. Calling Iraq or Afghanistan flourishing democracies is simply incorrect, I looked for a democracy index which would describe them as such but couldn't find one, they all list them as authoritarian states and whether democracy survives is really unclear.

The lack of indexes merely shows the bias of those behind creating the indexes. They simply don't want military intervention to be seen as a success when it clearly is. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, multiple parties vie for power in competitive elections. It is a WORLD of difference to what was there before. As to whether democracy survives (which implies it is currently living anyway), that's just a reason for an organization like NATO to stay engaged.

2. Ease of US victory
How long until people put 1 and 1 together? The US has no had an easy time in occupying nations with hostile non-state actors and that's exactly what they're going to get in the African and Middle-eastern authoritarian states.

There was a reason to disband the old security forces in Iraq and do nation-building. This is no longer the case. The target country's security forces can take care of any hostile non-state actors, and anyhow, this is the same result you would get with a revolution. Are you saying revolutions are always wrong because there might be some hostile non-state actors?

Do you think Iran, the most notorious supporter of militant non-state actors, Iran, with its mountainous geography and both infamous and sizeable anti-US sentiment is going to be a cakewalk for the US?

Absolutely I do. It would look like a cross between Afghanistan and Libya. You just need to fly some planes over Tehran, let the people rise up, and bomb any security forces that show up to suppress their revolution.

But you're never going to believe it until we actually do it. Which is another reason to do it. We need to reorganize our standing armies so that they only ever have to do wars of liberation.

Despite US interventionism, the world is becoming less democratic and the US is a part of that trend. Military interventionism has such a terrible track record, I don't think you can back up your optimism.

It has had an excellent track record. What about Panama? What about Kosovo? What about the allegedly impossible Iraq? What about the allegedly impossible Afghanistan? MANY people said it was impossible to install democracy by force of arms, it needed to come from the people themselves via revolution. That claim was absolute bunk. In Libya there was an actual uprising, but they would have been mowed down by automatic weapons if we hadn't intervened. And yes, because we went for a cheap (0 allied casualties, air only) war in Libya (which is all the UN would allow), Libya has had problems (which they presumably would also have had if they had had a successful revolution country-wide), but I fully expect those problems to be sorted out, as all sides support democracy.

For the Iraq war, I think most of the complexity comes from how difficult it has been. Much like Vietnam, I don't oppose aiming to stop the spread of authoritarian regimes like communism but it didn't stop it and instead, it just killed millions.

If you have any complaints about millions of dead Vietnamese, take it up with Mr Marx.

So if someone wants to prevent a repeat of the Vietnam war, can you really say "oh, you like communism then?"? As if all the US has to do to stop communism is precisely what clearly didn't stop communism in Vietnam, military interventionism?

South Vietnam was secure (just like South Korea) at the time the US left. The US shouldn't have left. THAT is the lesson from Vietnam. Not that we shouldn't physically stand against communism. ISIS was only able to take over part of Iraq in 2014 because the US left too. When the US re-engaged it was a cakewalk, with close to 0 dead US soldiers.

You want to do exactly the same thing over and over again until it works?

It did work in South Vietnam. South Vietnam was a non-communist state like South Korea. It worked in South Korea. It worked in Panama. It worked in Grenada. It worked in Kosovo. It worked in Afghanistan. It worked in Iraq. It worked in Libya. It will work in Iran too if we can just get people to recognize reality. When Iraq has 300+ political parties instead of 1, you should be able to recognize that something changed. And if democracy indexes don't note that, don't trust them. Also, none of the 300+ parties wins 100% of the vote like Saddam did.

BTW, there wasn't just one reason for the 2003 Iraq war. You won't win just by defeating one of the three reasons. See here.

You can't have a good act with bad intent. If a corrupt cop steals from a criminal who'd otherwise use it for a crime (without the cop knowing), the cop is still a thief.

But what if a 3rd party knows that the criminal is going to use the money for a crime? Should the 3rd party take action to prevent the corrupt cop from stealing a criminal's money? I wouldn't.

This is a philosophical question.

But what if a 3rd party knows that the criminal is going to use the money for a crime? Should the 3rd party take action to prevent the corrupt cop from stealing a criminal's money? I wouldn't. — Paul Edwards

That's just selective justice then which is no justice at all. If we start there we can have rules for poor people and rich people. Black people and white people. The law should apply to everyone equally. The corrupt cop should be apprehended because he's committing a crime.

This is your fundamental problem. You perhaps cannot even see it. It's that YOU are going with YOUR plan to LIBERATE somebody, free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression. The objective, the people you liberate are like a damsel in distress, a totally helpless entity, which then YOU then give a plan forwards they have to do. This is simply not the way democracy spreads.

It's the way democracy SHOULD spread. These people shouldn't have to fight alone, to be mowed down by automatic weapons. The only thing that is standing in the way of success is YOUR BRAIN. It's literally that simple. Western brains are the ONLY thing preventing worldwide democracy.

Perhaps it's difficult for you to understand how offensive the idea of a foreign military forces taking over your country and implementing changes to your society as you as an American never have had the threat of it (at least after the 1812 war).

I'm Australian. I realized in 2002 that I was in a unique position to argue the case for the 2003 Iraq war, because I was neither American not Christian (I was an atheist). That forces people to actually respond to the argument instead of dismissing me as a biased American.

Now to answer your actual point - why did 87% of Afghans support the US military intervention if foreign forces are so bad? Why did 50% of Iraqis support the US military intervention if foreign forces are so bad? What percentage of Australians do you think would support a US military intervention if we had a military coup and a cruel dictator? I would hope 99%, but I don't know. Whatever percentage it is, those are the only ones I actually care about. I don't care if my ideological enemy opposes my intervention. I will arm my ideological allies and they will take care of the rest.

Reminds me how the Soviets wanted to liberate us in 1939 using quite the same rhetoric. Lucky that both of my grandfathers came back alive from the war.

The difference is that for the Soviets, "liberate" means "communist dictatorship". For the US, "liberate" means "democracy". There's a huge difference. Can't you see it?

For starters, how about not thinking immediately of using military force to liberate / attack a country?

Or you think that would be somehow immoral thing to do?

My first preference is to write a nice letter to Saddam saying "Dear Saddam. Please stand down in favor of democracy. Yours truly, Paul Edwards (from Australia)". If he fails to act on that letter, then I will resort to force. Did you send such a letter to Saddam? What was your plan otherwise?

If Americans have difficulties with racial relations when slavery has been abolished a long time ago and segragation laws some 60 years ago, what about countries where those relations have been worse yesterday? You simply cannot assume there aren't huge problems in these societies, which have ended up with dictatorships. It's not as if before everything was just fine until somehow an evil dictator got himself into power and once you have taken away the dictator, democracy could flourish.

I don't believe that religious bigots/racists should determine Iraqi policy.

This is especially true in Iraq, as we have already seen. The only place where I could see a rather peaceful transition to a democracy and a justice state would be Belarus, if the present dictator would be toppled.

Plenty of places would be. E.g. Vietnam. It's very simple. All you have to do is a military defeat of the standing army, and then REUSE it.

Planning to use military force to oust Lukashenka in Belarus would be playing with the possibility of WW3.

Sure. Russia, despite being a democracy, is still full of immoral people, and that is reflected in their government. We have work to do to win them over now that they have freedom of speech. But I don't see how I'm going to convince them when I can't convince you.

The Shah didn't mow the protesters down with automatic weapons. — Paul Edwards

Again wrong.

They actually did do that. Here's a picture from "Black Friday" of the Iranian Revolution when that exactly happened:



The inept Shah then condemned the officers that followed orders (and did not have any riot gear or training), yet the massacre of some 100 people lead to a point of no return for the Shah. What was more hated was the Iranian secret police SAVAK that did torturte Iranians and had killed thousands of political opponents of the Shah. The Federation of American Scientist list the torture methods of the SAVAK with "SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails". Imperial Iran was far from a justice state or a democracy. And when the Shah finally agreed to implement reforms in 1979, it was far too late.

That's just selective justice then which is no justice at all.

If you wish to call that "selective justice" or "no justice", that's up to you. I believe preventing the crime is the right thing to do. You would rather the criminal commit his crime, without even detailing how heinous that crime is.

If we start there we can have rules for poor people and rich people. Black people and white people.

No, that is not my position.

The law should apply to everyone equally.

You seem to be blinded by the law, as if it was perfect. In the past there were laws against harboring Jews too.

The corrupt cop should be apprehended because he's committing a crime.

No, the crime by the criminal should be prevented. Especially if it was going to be a 9/11. And if it takes a corrupt cop to do the right thing, so be it.