My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Democratic voice silenced in Hong Kong | Main | Kerry's Vietnam record is an issue; he made it one »

August 04, 2004



Maybe in a few years, Michael Moore will be claiming that the success of Iraq is due to the "people's insurrection" sparked by a critical mass of the Kurdish revolutionary groups and the martyrs of Falujah. The US invasion was just a coincidence and only acted to slow the eventual outcome. The no-fly zone had nothing to do with the spontaneous generation of democratic principles and economic success of the North. Everything that happened was due to top secret UN negotiations involving Qusay, Jimmy Carter and Moammar Khadafi.


You must be tired after that post. Are you trying to keep up with Steven Den Beste?

Frank Warner

The real work was in looking up all those dates.

I know how poorly Michael Moore handles chronologies. Thought maybe he'd like a fact sheet.

Then again, when did he ever care about facts? And there's always the infamous Michael Moore editing to contend with.

Take "Twelve years after the Iraqis rose up, Iraq was finally free."

Edit it to "After the Iraqis rose up, Iraq finally was free."

Now you have the script for a Michael Moore documentary!

Andrew R. H. Jones

What about the French Revolution and the South African Revolution? I don't know much about the South African revolution, but the French Revolution rose up. Granted, the governments that followed were not pretty. Also, Lenin rose up and overthrew the Tsar of Russia. Fidel Castro also successfully overthrew Batista. These two became dictators themselves, which is not good, but they still led revolutions against a dictator without outside forces.

Anyway, I am bringing these up to know your opinions on them. There have been successful revolutions against dictatorships. However, if you want to argue that most of these revolutions turned out negatively, you could make a case for that.

Frank Warner

Louis XVI and Fulgencia Batista did not run modern totalitarian police states. And as you point out, the French Revolution gave France only a brief taste of liberty, and Castro gave Cuba none.

Not one modern totalitarian police state has been overturned by a popular uprising. Each totalitarian dictator maintains power through the elaborate central control of the army, the police, the bureaucracy, the press and the courts.

The totalitarians also use schools to indoctrinate children in the ideology of repression, and neighborhood block watches to inform authorities of the first signs of rebellion.

The difference between a looser dictatorship and a totalitarian dictatorship? Sometimes it's hard to draw the line. But you might judge it this way: In a loose or transitional dictatorship, the people can protest against their oppression knowing they have a better than 50 percent chance of going home alive. In a totalitarian police state, democratic protesters are not likely to go home at all, at least not breathing.

The comments to this entry are closed.