Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (53141)	10/19/2002 3:23:06 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi frankw1900; Re: "(9) The North and the South (leaving aside the slaves) were not run by tyrannies. Their citizens fought willingly. US is not a tyranny and its soldiers will fight willingly. Iraq is run by a tyranny hated by the citizens some of whom are dodging the draft. This makes it less likely Iraq will resist." There is essentially no historical evidence of citizens of tyrannies differing from citizens of democracies in their willingness to fight. The difficult part in finding any effect is to locate an example of two more or less comparable countries, which differ only by the factor being analyzed. If you've got examples of cases where a democracy beat a tyranny without having any of the other factors in its favor, let's hear them, but I believe that the historical record is fairly balanced on this. In fact, this thread has been inundated recently with neoconservatives arguing that France, a Democracy, was unwilling to fight Germany, a Dictatorship, in WW2, which is completely contrary to your assumption. This doesn't mean that I believe that Iraq being a tyranny makes it more likely that its citizens will fight, simply that this is not a significant effect. I look at things from the point of view of "what motivates an individual soldier" (or voter in an election, for that matter). Every country has things that they consider unique about them. (It's human nature that all human societies consider themselves to be unique.) In our case, our society (the US), thinks of itself as unique because of our devotion to democracy, among other things. Other societies have different beliefs, but their soldiers, nevertheless, fight just as hard. The Japanese maybe fought for the divinity of the Emperor, nothing to do with Democracy. The Germans maybe fought for racial purity. Whatever. The fact is that the Democracies have not demonstrated a superior fighting spirit to the Tyrannies. What they have demonstrated is a superior productive spirit, in terms of military armaments. You may as well argue that the Iraqis will fight harder because they believe in Allah, and want to be martyrs. I think that is bullshit as well. Re: "(10) The North and the South were more or less united within themselves. Whatever US divisions might be they aren't like Iraq's. Iraq's government has serious armed opposition in its north and serious potential opposition in its South. This makes it less likely Iraq will resist." I would think that the Shias will oppose us more for religious reasons, and the Sunnis will oppose us more for "Iraqi nationalism" reasons, but overall, a country fights harder that is unified, no question about it. On the other hand, the United States is hardly unified about fighting Iraq. We're having a glorious debate on it right now, remember? Overall, I think this factor is probably a wash. Re: "(11) The North was prosperous; the South was an economic basket case and was fighting for it's economic way of life. The US is prosperous. Iraq is not and Iraq citizens see an economic reward in losing. This makes it less likely Iraq will resist." I've included this already, under the far more inclusive number "(8) The South and North were comparable in terms of military technology, but the US has much better military technology than Iraq. This makes it less likely that Iraq will resist." -- Carl