Is a Government based on Tyranny the answer ?

Ashwindoke: With all due respect, I disagree with you. Democracy is only "less evil", if you perceive dictatorship as being evil. From a philosophical standpoint, a dictatorship is better than a democracy (and in theory communism is the best, but that's a different story). My argument for dictatorship is that, essentially, people are not capable of making proper decisions for themselves. If humankind had that ability, we would not need police. But, reality is, there's a need for rules, otherwise people would be running a red light, drive drunk, commit crimes in general. These issues are, of course, addressed in both a dictatorship and democracy. The problem with democracy is that "too many cooks...". A dictator is able to get more things done, quicker. Unfortunately, in most cases dictators lack the same ability as other people; they can't make proper decisions, that will benefit the majority (power corrupts, if you will). The problem the democracy in the "developed world" faces is, that the people in government are trying to satisfy too many and thus are often not satisfying the majority. In other words: No matter which form of government you choose, there will be victims. The only question is whether these people are victimized by one person of by the majority of the population.

The Dude: You're right about the progress made in WWII. That goes for any war, for that matter. And no doubt we're more technologically advanced because of wars. The questions is; has that technological advancement created a better world? I don't think so. I will never argue that Hitler was on to something. What happened to the Jews was a tragedy and despicable. Having said that, I think the Jewish people in power has milked the "pity-cow" for all it's worth and in the case of Israel, they've gone way overboard (and been allowed to do so) ever since Israel was "given" to them. It was not a coincidence that 9/11 happened in New York. The biggest population of Jews, outside of Israel. This, unfortunately, is a touchy subject and I don't think we'll see peace in that region - ever!! The war has been going on for a 1000 years, since the crusades and it will go on for another 1000 years. The only thing that is bound to change, is the weapons with which the war is fought. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, of course.

Not that's it's exactly on the topic, but I'd like to quote Einstein: "I don't know what kind of weapons will be used during world war III, but I do know that world war IV will be fought with clubs".

If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough...

All wars ultimately advance our technological capacity to kill. The scientific discoveries and techniques are usually well-known before wars break out, but are largely ignored in favor of the status quo - until the same techniques can be subverted for the purposes of warfare and the politicians have a novel means of cashing in on them. If (and its a big if) we, as the people, can heed the scientists before the warmongers do, we could use the same technologies to address many of the issues that cause war (social, economic).

All Hitler saw at the time was a scapegoat on whom he could blame the dire economic situation of post-Depression Germany and businesses to ransack. The spread of the Jewish diaspora had meant that many Jews could rely on financial help and investment from family members in England and the US, thereby becoming slightly better off than Germans who had become totally isolated from international markets and foreign investment. Hitler's actions during WWII gave a massive impetus for the establishment of the state of Israel along Zionist thought-lines.

Israel is Israel and Zionism is Zionism. I have many Jewish friends in South Africa and elsewhere who are totally opposed to both. It is true that capitalist/Zionist Jews in the US form a strong electoral bloc, which has the means to shift policy, but I think that moderate Muslims in the US and the UK have, and should employ the same leverage to lobby for the freedom of Palestinians. Look at what the oil embargo in the early 70's did! Nixon was nearly unseated due to the inflationary pressures of a fuel shortage! If Arab nations could repeat that show of solidarity, Israel and the US would both be forced to make serious concessions. But at this stage Fatah and Hamas won't even talk to each other...

Strong leadership yes, dictatorship no. Both cases that you mention are examples of leaders that do not have the means to govern (make real decisions) in terms of apparatus. Medvedev is a novel means for Putin to extend his constitutional term, while Karzai is a means for the West to go Taliban-bashing without too many hassles. I agree that the history books are filled with many examples of "benevolent dictatorships", but the methods that these "dictators" employed to consult the will of the people and the welfare of their respective nations make the description of their rule much more compatible to a true, functioning (theoretical) modern democracy.

An Afghan leader that charts a visionary destination for the Afghan people AND has the means to implement his ideas would be wonderful. This is why the Afghan people chose to follow the Taliban in the first place. Unfortunately, as both the US and the Soviets had a go at weakening this country politically and economically, while establishing their own might, such leaders do not exist. If a dictator were to pop up all of a sudden, you could be assured that he would be a puppet of either power (and probably of the US - a la Pinochet, Tho, Saddam etc.). That is why the best hope for that country, in the long term, is an inclusive democracy that is able to establish its own secular administration, national defense force and that debates and issues legislation to guarantee its own agenda... until such a person can take his/her rightful place

This is what the US has promised to do for the country, but methinks they just want to maintain a close presence to Iran and keep Russia out of this neck of the woods...

Is it fair to say that without WW2 we would not have been as technologically advanced as we are now?

And, for give me my insensitive attitude. But, looking at the US now ruled by the Jews that use their power in support of Israel which consequently has given us decades of misery, death and destruction in the Middle East. So, Hitler saw that coming... somehow??

(with this statement I do not justify anything, just throwing a ball in the air to see what reactions it creates)

I agree with you regarding Hitler..

However, I believe that dictatorships can work given the maturity levels / evolution of the society..

Look at Russia.. It is a sham democracy with a dictator at the helm.. Perhaps a few elections from now, the model won't be appropriate..

Look at Afghanistan . karzai is a puppet leader, supposedly elected, but only in control of Kabul. Here a dictator would come in handy.

But people -

Democracy is less Evil..

Today we see Dictatorship as a better governance as it is soln to problems caused by Democracy..

Problems in Dictatorship... if a wrong guy sits.... was answered by Democracy...

And among the two.... democracy is lesser evil....

We are exploited by choice.... we choose to be exploited and screwed... unlike in dictatorship :)

___________________________________________

Reality is a Illusion Caused Due to Deficiency of Alcohol

Every dictatorship need not be opressive.. whatever works for a country i guess.. Ecclestone is a senile eccentric idiot IMHO so cant agree with anything he says..

Ambivalent thinking is quite OK, which is why I sometimes have a love-hate relationship with my own country South Africa (I'm a Joburger)- for all the reasons mentioned, most of which were bound to happen, many of which should be urgently addressed. So in this instance I personally am not totally "anti" or jingoistically "pro", (imho South Africa is messy but not a "mess").

I won't give Hitler an inch of cred, though - he used all his charisma and genius to destroy the lives of millions - not just Gypsies and Jews, but even his own people: the SS marched on force-fed crystal meth and thousands of Wehrmacht soldiers died of cold and hunger during the Russian campaign due to a basic lack of provision. Powerlust period.

Consequently, I agree with Cargodog on Ecclestone

True cargo,

the world-leaders have tried to convince us that Socialism, communism, dictatorships etc etc are evils. This only to distract us from the evils of democracy, which we are now largely experiencing.

Try imposing democracy in China... no way, no how that will ever work what a mess that country would be in.

If leave the fact that nothing is forever, Singapore is in fact a good example of a country where a dictatorship has worked just fine. Unfortunately, the word "dictatorship" is often perceived as a negative, but in the case of Singapore, it's actually a benign dictatorship. If you behave, you've got nothing to worry about. In fact, I was quite happy there for 5 years.

If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough...

What about Singapore and Malaysia...

the transition there was pretty seamless..

Awful, brit, and it won't last forever, I promise you.

Democracy is Worst Form of Governance....

And we have nothing better than it.. :(

- Winston Churchill

___________________________________________

Reality is a Illusion Caused Due to Deficiency of Alcohol

What about Syria and jordan ??

Basically, nothing can be sustained. In essence sustainability does not exist. There's no such things an everlasting empire. Everything will crumble and disappear eventually - it's just a matter of how long it will take. ;-)

If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough...

Dictatorships depend on the person of the dictator. The trouble begins when he dies. History has shown this with numerous examples. A great leader dies and his empire crumbles. Sustainability cannot be achieved through dictatorship.

And people who have been discriminated against for centuries cannot be brought to a level playing field in one day by abolishing aparthied. Some positive discrimination is justified and necessary.

Some people just want to have their own way and will do anythign for it, even if its becoming a hitler. First it was about WMD, then it was about bringing democracy to Eyraq and now its EYiraqis are not ready for democracy.

Bernie Ecclestone is a clown. Anyone disputing that, should read the initial post again. If you still disagree then... Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Here's why I say he's a clown. Ecclestone and Hitler are alike in many ways - though on HUMONGOUSLY different scales. Ecclestone has done a lot for F1 and basically gotten it where it is today (or at least a few years back), much like Hitler initially did some great things for Germany. Hitler was removed, thank god, and the country was in ruins. The same could happen to F1, but something good came out of removing Hitler (well, a lot of good things came out of removing him). Germany came back as a strong nation and is now one of the strongest nations in Europe. Remove Ecclestone, let the turmoil begin and then let F1 come back in a much stronger position than it is in today. Alternatively, screw Ecclestone and get the majority of the teams to start their own race. Either way, Ecclestone is a burnt out dictator that has ruined the sport for the rest of us and he should not be allowed to have anything more to do with it F1.

Just my two cents...

If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough...

Rob, politics remains politics. Indoctrinated most people are, yet peoples do have the power to change the course of a country. This usually during elections.

As goes for South Africa, in all its natural beauty... still a corrupt mess.

When in Johannesburg I got a feeling that 'appartheid' is not gone yet, ironically it is switching from white - black to black - white. But now they invented a term which is called 'positive discrimination'.... which, in essence, justifies a slight form of racism.

Rob,

I understand that some people may be surprised when it comes to praising Hitler. But, since when is it wrong to have 2 opinions about 1 subject?

They call this ambivalent thinking (correct?)

I should qualify that I am neither anti-British nor anti-American, nor do I think that South Africa has all the answers. That being said, many people living in the US and UK are totally unaware of the things that their governments do abroad in their name, and most have been indoctrinated to believe that their leaders have national and international interests at heart, when most often, wars are fought for personal (financial, psychological, emotional) reasons and are justified by invoking the former.

Nice quote there The Rock...Applies beautifully to the US.

Democracy to me is the replacement of God within society. For an extended period of time, throughout history, God (thus, the church) has ruled nations and kept society in control which is essence is dictatorship or ontopic: Government through Tyranny as religious books serve as a tool to incite fear into humans. Behave or burn in hell. Unless you are a cardinal and you may burn people alive, as we saw during the time of the Spanish Inquisition.

Post WW2, Europe, 2nd Industrial revolution and the growth of economies, thus wealth/prosperity, which leads to individualistic behaviorism within societies. Churches become empty and peoples rely less on God, hence democracy and secularism. The question now is, how long does democracy sustain it's value? Are we in a stage of change now as the world is in recession and new terms as NWO are becoming stronger, or are we at the end of our 'expansion' and will we implode, going back to basics?

I won't use the old "appalled" or "disgusted" line to respond to praise of Hitler and his methods, but yeah, if you can overlook systematic and brutal criminality that feeds off racism and intolerance in establishing a regime - sure, Hitler was one helluva guy!

Democracy wold work just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan if it were not for the fact that the "old democracies" (read the UK, US) consistently have the need to impose their own version of it on other peoples. What gets in the way of building strong democratic principles in these countries, most often, is the interference of these "old democracies" in the internal politics of other nations in order to satisfy their own interests. Saddam was backed up by the US in order to combat the feared erosion of US interests by the Iranian revolution. Likewise, the Taliban in Iraq derived their power from US funding as a counter to Soviet influence in the region. Bin Laden himself was a secret US ally at first. The list of similar subversive action trails through the Nixon administration (who ensured that democratically-elected-but-socialist Allende in Chile got replaced by military-coup-inducted-right-wing-dictator-for-life Pinochet) and as far back as the 50's in Central and South America. I'm not making this up - read Kissinger's, Zbigniew Brzezinski's or any ex-CIA agent's memoirs for detail.

The notion that other nations are "not mature enough" to handle democracy stems from the same misplaced sense of superiority that caused widespread oppression and the rape of natural resources through colonization. As an example, much of the political corruption we see in Africa stems not from primitive morals, but from the British policy of tribal divide-and-conquer combined with the centralization of the economy in the administration and enforced poverty so that resources could be controlled even after the colonizers had left.

"Primitive" South Africa woke up to many of the above facts in the late 80's and early 90's. The South African people came to a resolve without interference from outside agents. We agreed (against all odds) on a home-grown constitution that, for the most part, accommodates all who live there and that averted the full-scale civil war that everyone accepted as a given. Had we had more attention from the UK or US this would certainly have failed. Had we had OIL we would have still been fighting...

Works in short term only, not long term. Depends on the stage of development the country is in (or not). The only thing constant in life is change. Everything is dynamic.

Agree with Britexpat & The Dude.

*****************************************

Don't want no drama,

No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama

leaving aside hitler, i would say this guy is right. Something to the same effect was said by Che Guvera in a Times interview.

As for democracy, i'd like to quote one of my favorite writers:

'Democracy is a way of repression through proper channel' - Arundhati Roy

------------------------------------------

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

An excellent point regarding Iraq.. The Balkans are another example..

Not all societies are mature enough or ready enough to adopt democracy..

Well, in my view Hitler was a great 'manager', leader. His achievements were initially exceptional and his influence great, and his approach highly intelligent.

Just a shame he had some major psychological issues, like a major "superiority complex', which led to his extremist ideologies and thus his extremist behavior. It still amazes me how he got all noses to point in the same direction.

Socialism and communism have been proven successful on 'short notice' but not effective on a long term.

Tyranny is effective when a country is largely divided. Look at Iraq, surely it can not be justified that Saddam throws bombs on Kurds, but what the Americans fail to understand is that Democracy will NEVER work in Iraq. This country needs a dictator, all 'tribes' living on that piece of land CAN NOT and NEVER WILL be living in a democratic system (unless sliced in 3), it it simply too divided.

Its true.. Politicians are too wishy washy nowadays.. We need Maggie Thatcher back..