Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Worst of the Worst
Freedom House provides the awesome service of issuing list after list of countries that suck. Sometimes it's countries that suck at freedom of the press, sometimes it countries that suck at human rights, but the general tenor of the their reports is: "Hey! These guys are really bad. Don't forget, OK?" Which, though I sound flip, is a very legitimate service. And if it serves no other purpose, it reminds readers to pay attention to the seemingly intractable once in awhile, while giving journalists something to write about on a slow news day.
Their latest report gets right to the heart of their mission. It's called "The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies, 2007"[PDF]:
“Repressive regimes can be incredibly resilient, as this year’s list demonstrates,” said Arch Puddington, Director of Research at Freedom House [and possessor of the best name ever]. “Some of the countries on this list are global bullies; others are responsible for unspeakable humanitarian crises. In practically every case, these regimes are resistant to change and are indifferent to their citizens’ political rights, civil liberties and basic human needs.”
So, for your weekend amusement, the list:
The report includes detailed summaries of political and human rights conditions in Belarus, Burma, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. Also included are three territories: Chechnya, Tibet and Western Sahara. Except for Cote d’Ivoire, which is new to the list this year, and Belarus, Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe, all have been rated the “worst of the worst” since 2002 or earlier.
thoreau|5.11.07 @ 9:51PM|#
That's only because they don't have a "Worst Hair"
category.
Are we going to have another conversation about 70's haircuts?
Guy Montag|5.11.07 @ 10:05PM|#
Did Nick's hair look extra full on the Bill Moyers show tonight, or is it just me?
|5.11.07 @ 10:32PM|#
Everyone orgasms over these things . . . so what about Libya? Mohmar Khadafi-Duck? What in the hell? I dont care about these vermin . . . they can do what they please, so long as it does not hurt me as an American citizen. Whatever happened to blessed, shrug-the-shoulders, fuck-you isolationism??
Duh|5.11.07 @ 10:37PM|#
"Whatever happened to blessed, shrug-the-shoulders, fuck-you
isolationism??"
Oil.
|5.11.07 @ 10:53PM|#
Did you notice that P.J. O'Rourke and Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (lefty intellectual) are on the Board of Trustees of Freedom House? Talk about a rainbow coalition!
hke|5.11.07 @ 11:25PM|#
I'm shocked that the US, Canada, and the UK rated so highly. It
seems that there has been a great reduction in our civil rights and
civil liberties over the past several years. Did they account for
the usurption of property rights in the US, the cameras in the UK,
or the warrantless wiretaps? Did they visit one of the wonderful
airports in these countries?
No doubt that the western trail is more free than places like North
Korea, but I think we have a lot of things we can improve upon. We
should at least have down arrows.
I guess these folks can keep on "rockin' in the free world" if they
think they're that free. Me, I don't "believe the hype".
|5.11.07 @ 11:52PM|#
The opposition leader (a black by the way) to Mugabe in Zimbabwe
finally had the courage to admit that overall, Africans had more
peace, freedom and prosperity under the yoke of British colonialism
than they do now, and that and self-rule
has largely failed. Africa is well represented on the list.
|5.12.07 @ 12:00AM|#
hke,
Instead of listing countries as "free," "partly free," and "not
free," Freedom House should use the categories "least bad," "pretty
bad," and "extreme suckitude."
Incidentally, the Freedom House freedom map for 2006 lists Mongolia
as free.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15
Can someone think of a good joke about Mongolian freedom? Because
I'm blocking.
Ghengis is still a kiss|5.12.07 @ 12:32AM|#
Can someone think of a good joke about Mongolian
freedom?
I Kahn't.
|5.12.07 @ 1:01AM|#
If you look further up in the report they have a different list:
"Included in this country are eight countries judged to have the
worst records: Burma, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Also included are two territories,
Chechnya and Tibet, whose countries suffer intense repression.
These states and regions received the Freedom House survey's lowest
rating: 7 for political rights and 7 for civil liberties." In other
words, these are the absolute worst, which answers the question of
what happened to Libya.
"This report also includes nine further countries near the bottom
of Freedom House's list of the most repressive: Belarus, China,
Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Saudi Arabia,
Syria and Zimbabwe The territory of Western Sahara is also included
in this group. While these states scored slightly better than the
'worst of the worst,'they offer very little scope for private
discussion while severely suppressing opposition political
activity, impeding independent organizing, and censoring or
publishing criticism of the state." So these are the next-to-worst
of the worst.
I notice Putin's Russia hasn't fallen to this level yet. Western
Sahara is another occupied country with a civil war.
Anonymo the Anonymous|5.12.07 @ 3:44AM|#
(a black by the way)
Since when did my dead grandpa get an Internet connection?
|5.12.07 @ 8:11AM|#
"I'm shocked that the US, Canada, and the UK rated so
highly."
I know what you mean. Free the Dixie Chicks & Michael Moore
from the Gulags now! Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rob Levine|5.12.07 @ 8:14AM|#
I'm sure all those prisoners at Guantanamo, or the ones we killed there or in Abu Grahib, or the "ghost" prisoners we're holding around the world, or the 600,000 dead Iraqis, think the US is a real beacon of freedom. Freedom House is a right wing hack house.
robc|5.12.07 @ 10:06AM|#
I dont know about anyone else, but when someone says "right wing hack house" my first thought is "Eleanor Roosevelt".
|5.12.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Free the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore? This can only be sarcasm. The Chicks and Moore are rolling in it--money, fame, liberty, license--the darlings of the Left, spouting off constantly. Perhaps the commenter thinks that any sort of criticism in a free society equates to censorship, to imprisonment, denial of freedon? Very typical of the Left
|5.12.07 @ 10:44AM|#
I'm an historically ignorant Leftist..
I don't have one.
Sincerely,
RobLevine'sSenseOfScale
|5.12.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Kudos for shedding light on Burma. One of the most despicable regimes on earth. And totally ignored by the MSM. But why should we care? It's not like they're sitting on a river of oil or anything.
Guy Montag|5.12.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Is this now the weekend open thread?
Okay, unrelated responses follow.
I'm sure all those prisoners at Guantanamo, or the ones we
killed there or in Abu Grahib, or the "ghost" prisoners we're
holding around the world, or the 600,000 dead Iraqis, think the US
is a real beacon of freedom. Freedom House is a right wing hack
house.
If they would just learn that "leave us alone and nobody gets hurt"
lesson then they would still be back where we found them.
Kudos for shedding light on Burma. One of the most despicable
regimes on earth. And totally ignored by the MSM. But why should we
care? It's not like they're sitting on a river of oil or
anything.
I thought Officer Blair (George Orwell) did that when he tried his
hand at elephant shooting? They certainly were not being ignored by
the British back then.
|5.12.07 @ 10:56AM|#
I'm a whiny glass-half-empty dark cloud victim-wannabe Leftist
who identifies with all the losers in the world.
I have none.
Somebody please arrest me!
Sincerely,
Rob Levine's Sense of Gratitude
|5.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
That's not funny! How can you be laughing & hitting on
pretty girls & turning your back to me when there are VICTIMS
in this world!?
Stop having fun & FEEL the unfairness with me!
And why is everybody ignoring my sister Debbie Downer? She's saying
important things!
Sincerely,
Rob Levine's Fun Quotient
Grotius|5.12.07 @ 11:08AM|#
The Dixie Chicks don't have to be in the gulag for me to dislike and thus question some of the developments that have come about post-9/11 (or even before that).
Guy Montag|5.12.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Is Quenten Harding (I know I probably have his name off by a few
letters) trying to leave Forbes and come to Reason?
Perhaps he should write to the foundation instead of cluttering up
the screen at Forbes on FOX.
|5.12.07 @ 11:29AM|#
"Whatever happened to blessed, shrug-the-shoulders, fuck-you
isolationism??"
It moved to the Democratic party.
"The Dixie Chicks don't have to be in the gulag for me to dislike
and thus question some of the developments that have come about
post-9/11 (or even before that)."
No, but it's a pleasant thought anyway!
highnumber|5.12.07 @ 11:29AM|#
I hope my various attributes aren't as talkative as Rob Levine's. Then again, I suppose my sense of scale is a bit healthier.
|5.12.07 @ 11:48AM|#
I'm shocked that the US, Canada, and the UK rated so highly.
It seems that there has been a great reduction in our civil rights
and civil liberties over the past several years. Did they account
for the usurption of property rights in the US, the cameras in the
UK, or the warrantless wiretaps? Did they visit one of the
wonderful airports in these countries?
Remember that these listings are relative, not absolute. The
standards by which freedoms are judged are the freedoms in other
countries. Which is why nations with compulsory healthcare,
profligate cameras and injudicious application of habeus
corpus can still be listed as the freest in the world.
A hundred years from now The US will still be on top of the pile
because we'll be able to choose which hand our Lojack is implanted
in, and we'll be able to turn our telescreens off for up to an hour
at a time.
bourgeoiscowboy|5.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#
"A hundred years from now The US will still be on top of the
pile because we'll be able to choose which hand our Lojack is
implanted in, and we'll be able to turn our telescreens off for up
to an hour at a time."
Still sounds better than being stoned to death for becoming a rape
victim.
Guy Montag|5.12.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Still sounds better than being stoned to death for becoming
a rape victim.
Or getting beaten for refusing to wear a stupid pin at a chairity
walk . . .
Cesar|5.12.07 @ 12:44PM|#
And just to show what a worthless organization the United
Nations is, one of the countries on the list--Zimbabwe--has just
been elected to chair a commission that is suppose to promote
economic progress.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/05/12/un.zimbabwe.ap/index.html
|5.12.07 @ 12:58PM|#
I saw this thing on the news about how polluted the drinking water is in Iraq, the Tigris and Euphrates are making lots of people sick. The UN is distributing water to literally thousands of people so they will not die of things like dysentery. Yeah, thats worthless, huh Cesar? You may not like some of the stands and ways they organize (some of which are absurd) but the UN saves thousands of people's lives a year doing countless good things that otherwise may not get done. So why not take that uninformed right wing talking points nonsense back to Redstate.com and other equally not-in-the-know blogs.
Cesar|5.12.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Ken--
I was referring more to the way they are organized rather than any
humanitarian work they do.
I'm not for abolishing the whole thing, I don't like it much but I
realize its the only international organization available.
Its just very frustrating to see things like Libya and Sudan
chairing the human rights commission, the conference on racism
condemming the United States for being racist while ignoring
Drafur,etc, etc.
Bob (Cedric\'s|5.12.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Or getting beaten for refusing to wear a stupid pin at a
chairity walk . . .
Who? Who does not want to wear the ribbon? I am wearing the ribbon.
He is wearing the ribbon. We are all wearing the ribbon! So why
aren't you going to wear the ribbon!?
|5.12.07 @ 1:28PM|#
You may not like some of the stands and ways they organize
(some of which are absurd) but the UN saves thousands of people's
lives a year doing countless good things that otherwise may not get
done.
There are intl orgs that do similar things (Red Cross/Crescent
comes to mind), without the world-govt pretentions the UN brings to
the table. I don't see how the political wing of the UN is
necessary for the humanitarian wing to do its good work.
|5.12.07 @ 2:01PM|#
If they would just learn that "leave us alone and nobody
gets hurt" lesson then they would still be back where we found
them.
That whole "leave us alone and nobody gets hurt" lesson might go
two ways, mightn't it?
eugene|5.12.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Were Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran truly free countries, representative of their peoples' interests, oil would likely be even more expensive and their foreign policies would be unrelentingly hostile to Israel and the US.
Guy Montag|5.12.07 @ 3:04PM|#
In other words, who left home and started bothering other
folks first?
First, the earth cooled, then some other stuff happened, the Iraq
invaded Kuwait, then we kicked them out and they accepted surrender
terms, then Iraq violated all of them and we are back again.
Oh, our friends count too so leave them alone and nobody gets
hurt.
Grotius|5.12.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Guy Montag,
...then some other stuff happened...
Yes, part of that "other stuff" was the invasion of "Iraq" by the
British during WWI. Then the "Iraqis" rebelled (after WWI) and were
mercilessly put down by the British.
Grotius|5.12.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Guy Montag,
In other words, history, memory or whatever what one wishes to call
it has a fairly long tail. For people and nations it is a difficult
thing to overcome. Which is in part why Machiavelli argued that the
foundations of polities are so critical.
__________________________________
Folks should ask themselves what sort of foundation is being laid
for a future Iraq.
|5.12.07 @ 4:12PM|#
"…but the UN saves thousands of people's lives a year doing
countless good things that otherwise may not get done."
After the big tidal wave in Thailand a couple of years back,
despite what some German government minister babbled, it was the US
effing Navy and its support branche, the marine corps, along with
the uniformed branch of the civil service (air force) that saved
100s of thousands of lives. I bet you don't sing the USN's praises
though.
Free the Dixie Chicks now!!!! Release Michael Moore!!!! Freedom!!!
(read that last one with a bad Glaswegian accent)
Guy Montag|5.12.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Grotius,
We were no longer the British then and not for quite some time
before.
And, no Iraq can not have the excuse that they were traumatized by
the British so they had to invade Kuwait.
|5.12.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Another story being ignored by the media is what's happening in Kosovo right now. In a couple of days, the UN Security Council will vote on whether to grant it independence (despite no referendum occurring, and it being a violation of Serbian sovereignty). Russia is widely expected to veto it; how the Kosovars will react to that is anyone's guess. Could we see another Chechnya in the Balkans?
robc|5.12.07 @ 6:10PM|#
I have a question that Ive never got a good answer to, that
actually applies here (in that Ive used Freedom House's #s in
helping to determine an answer in the past). When was the last time
that two free democracies fought each other in a war?
Someone on this forum ought to have the history background to come
up with better answers than I have. The best suggestions I have
ever heard are:
1. Falklands - however, I believe Freedom House has Argentina as
"partly free" at that time + Im not sure they were a democracy
really either.
2. War of 1812 - Ive excluded it because the King still had power
in England at the time.
A lot depends on how nit-picky you want to be on "free" and
"democracy". For me, the point is, look at the countries that score
a 1 on both parts of Freedom House's list. Does anyone see these
countries going to war with each other?
|5.12.07 @ 6:28PM|#
War of 1812 - Ive excluded it because the King still had
power in England at the time.
Actually, Parliament had taken all his power away from him two
years earlier (pretending that he had signed the bill ceding that
power) and handed it over to the Prince Regent.
|5.12.07 @ 6:32PM|#
Argentina was ruled by a particularly vicious group of
right-wing generals at the time of the Falklands War.
When was the last time that two free democracies fought each other in a war?
Depends how you define democracy. For example, Yugoslavia under
Milosevic was technically a democracy and the opposition and press
had some degree of freedom, yet it also had elements of a police
state. A Croatian writer came up with the term "Democratatorship"
to describe the various post-communist Yugoslavian states. Putin's
Russia could be described in the same manner.
South Africa under Apartheid could also be considered a whites-only
democracy (though white anti-racism activists could also fall afoul
of repressive laws if they crossed certain boundaries).
Note that both of those countries are considered full democracies
today.
|5.12.07 @ 7:46PM|#
robc | May 12, 2007, 6:10pm | #
I have a question that Ive never got a good answer to, that
actually applies here (in that Ive used Freedom House's #s in
helping to determine an answer in the past). When was the last time
that two free democracies fought each other in a war?
Possibly one of our interventions in Latin America? I think Bolivia
had one of its few democratically election governments at the
beginning of the Chaco War, but I'm not sure about Paraguay.
Bolivia initiated the actual war, but there were skirmishes for a
long time before it.
|5.12.07 @ 7:54PM|#
If they would just learn that "leave us alone and nobody
gets hurt" lesson then they would still be back where we found
them.
That's what Saddam and other dictators said to people who opposed
them.
|5.12.07 @ 8:07PM|#
A better measure of the power of markets to help the cause of
peace is to look at Thomas Friedman's
Golden Arches Theory. Stated:
"No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against
each other since each got its McDonald's".
Granted, this rule was broken once when Nato attacked Serbia (I
seem to be stuck on that topic today). However, it holds true for
the most part.
|5.12.07 @ 8:11PM|#
First, the earth cooled, then some other stuff happened, the
Iraq invaded Kuwait, then we kicked them out and they accepted
surrender terms, then Iraq violated all of them and we are back
again.
Yeah, let's consider some of that "other stuff [that]
happened".
It might be really instructive if we did, no?
Nobody Important|5.12.07 @ 8:40PM|#
Rob Levine | May 12, 2007, 8:14am
I'm sure all those prisoners at Guantanamo,
Which is how Cuba got on the list...
|5.12.07 @ 8:42PM|#
A better measure of the power of markets to help the cause
of peace is to look at Thomas Friedman's Golden Arches Theory.
Stated:
"No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against
each other since each got its McDonald's".
Granted, this rule was broken once when Nato attacked Serbia (I
seem to be stuck on that topic today). However, it holds true for
the most part.
Um, how bout when Israel invaded Lebanon?
Do civil wars count?
Rawanda was making the transition to some form of democracy when
the stuff in the 90s happened.
Indonesia is fighting something of an Islamic insurgency,
Phillipeans a communist one, Nepal a Maoist one and Turkey a
Kurdish one.
And of course, Iraqis somehow manage to keep killing each other
after having elections.
Asking why democracies never fight each other is like asking why
you never see two rich guys slugging it out on a street corner.
Countres that can maintain such systems are usually societies with
mores and values that make war unlikely.
Seems to make sense. Unfortunaeley the morons in the Bush
administration read the evidence backwards and decided that
elections and voting are a magic pill that civillize men.
Deus|5.12.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Um, how bout when Israel invaded Lebanon?
Technically that was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, not the
Lebanese governement. The Lebanese Army wasn't even a
participant.
Guy Montag|5.12.07 @ 11:19PM|#
Could we see another Chechnya in the Balkans?
It is so cute how all of the Leftists here (not you) keep grasping
at making the West the bad folks and everybody else the "good"
folks!
Just going from the last post about Lebanon, Israel invaded Lebanon
every time because people in Lebanon were attacking Israeli
civilians. Even the last time, the only side that attacked military
targets was Israel. The folks shooting from Lebaon were targeting
subdivisions in Israel and "hiding" in apartment buildings.
You folk are so transparent as to make it only a puzzle for those
studying philosophy with a bag over their head in a locked
closet.
Grotius|5.12.07 @ 11:47PM|#
Guy Montag,
We were no longer the British then and not for quite some time
before.
And? Who stated that we are the British?
And, no Iraq can not have the excuse that they were traumatized
by the British so they had to invade Kuwait.
And? Who made any claim about an "excuse?"
Let me repeat what I wrote:
In other words, history, memory or whatever what one wishes to call
it has a fairly long tail. For people and nations it is a difficult
thing to overcome. Which is in part why Machiavelli argued that the
foundations of polities are so critical.
robc,
It is an issue of typology.
Guy Montag|5.12.07 @ 11:56PM|#
Grotius,
Go on with all of your doublespeak and have fun in your mommie's
basement.
I am sure we will hear from you how fire can not melt steel
too.
Grotius|5.13.07 @ 12:12AM|#
Dues,
Pakistan and India both have McDonalds and while not at war there
something of a dispute border conflict between them.
|5.13.07 @ 1:59AM|#
"Were Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran truly free countries,
representative of their peoples' interests, oil would likely be
even more expensive and their foreign policies would be
unrelentingly hostile to Israel and the US."
Saudi Arabia, sure. Iraq wouldn't be Iraq, it'd be three countries,
with the Kurd part friendly toward us. And Iran? Most Iranians love
Western culture -- they might still hate Israel and NYC, but
otherwise friendly toward us.
Sorry about ruining a perfectly good argument by dragging in facts.
My bad.
LarryA|5.13.07 @ 2:02AM|#
I'm shocked that the US, Canada, and the UK rated so
highly.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
|5.13.07 @ 4:29AM|#
Pakistan and India both have McDonalds and while not at war there something of a dispute border conflict between them.
True, though relations between them have greatly improved since
'99. (Though I could wiggle out of that one by claiming the
"where's the beef" clause: the McDonalds in India don't serve beef
(they use mutton instead) so can't be considered true
representatives of the phenomenon.)
There also was a violation of the rule when Panama was invaded in
Operation Just Cause.
It's not an ironclad rule, but the principle behind it, that a
nation with a prosperous and growing middle class becomes less a
threat to its neighbours seems fairly sound. (American
exceptionalism notwithstanding).
robc|5.13.07 @ 8:41AM|#
Deus,
Depends how you define democracy
Apparently, depends on how free is defined too. Its wasnt free or
democratic that I was setting as my standard, it was free AND
democratic. None of the countries you mentioned could really be
described as free.
I guess I could make my standard more objective - Since Freedom
House started ratings countries in the early 70s (or late 60s) have
two countries, both of which score a 1 on both rating sections,
fought a war against each other?
robc|5.13.07 @ 8:54AM|#
Syd,
From some googling around, it appears Paraguay didnt have a
democratically elected government until 1993. From 1904 thru the
end of the Chaco war, the Liberal Party had taken over from the
Colorado party, but that appears to be change in 1 party rule, not
anything democratic. But, history of Paraguay seems sparse, so I
cant tell for sure. Bolivia was a democracy at the beginning of the
war (not sure how free of a democracy) but had a coup during the
war, so they didnt end it that way.
Lenina Huxley|5.13.07 @ 8:59AM|#
Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the Franchise Wars. Now all restaurants are Taco Bell.
highnumber|5.13.07 @ 9:41AM|#
Grotius deigning to debate with Guy Montag?!
What's next? The US going to war with Lichtenstein?
Grotius,
Yes, that is the best he can do. He was actually quite proud of
that. Humor him. Act like you've been bested. There is nothing to
be gained from conversation with Guy Montag.
Grotius|5.13.07 @ 9:47AM|#
Concerning the "two democracies have never fought each other" bit while on a theoretical level it makes a certain degree of sense it is by no means an iron-clad rule. Furthermore, the veracity of much of the evidence for or against this claim is highly dependent on the definitions used.
libertreee|5.13.07 @ 10:02AM|#
I for one am somewhat disappointed in the report on Somalia. It
takes a statist viewpoint. Somalia
did not descend into anarchy, but consciously chose NOT to have
western style Democracy. True, in the Southern area, around the
capitol, Mogadishu, there has been chaos, but how much of that is
caused by the attempts of the AU, the UN and the US to force on the
people what they do not want-democracy? The clans have not had the
incentive to cooperate when the other countries have been
constantly meddling, trying to establish a government that surely
will be dominated by one clan over the others. The chaos then is
largely caused by rival clans jockeying for position to take over
the state when it is established. That is the case now-one clan has
won, backed by the US.
The Somalia experiment is significant for libs because it is the
first nation since 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia) to consciously
decide NOT to have a government. Democracy in Africa has resulted
in so many civil wars and genocides because when one tribe wins the
power it sees it as an opportunity to exploit or even wipe out the
minority tribe. The Somalis called
holding office in a democracy or any government "having a chair".
When you have a chair, it makes everything illegal legal, and
everything legal illegal.
The African system of laws (XEER) that they tried to live under is
not anarchy, and not Sharia law either. It is KRITARCHY, or rule by
judges. It is still working well in Northern Somalia, or
Somaliland.
Kritarchy is not really anarchy because the clans do not sell land
to each other. It still has a territorial basis. But, it is not a
monopoly on the use of force over the whole territory, where the
majority exterminates the minority, either. It was a big step
towards showing the world what new forms of stateless governence
can emerge in the 21 Century.
libertreee|5.13.07 @ 10:18AM|#
Democracies do not go to war with each other?
HA! Read Prof Hoppe
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe17.html)
Capt. Logan|5.13.07 @ 10:52AM|#
"I want you two to be the worst of the worst. And don't ever let me catch you doing the things they teach you."
The First Church of Appliantol|5.13.07 @ 11:24AM|#
If Somalia doesn't have a western style government, who's to pay their western style debt?
Jennifer|5.13.07 @ 12:35PM|#
And, no Iraq can not have the excuse that they were
traumatized by the British so they had to invade Kuwait.
But apparently America can have the excuse "we were traumatized by
Saudi hijackers with Afghan backing, so we had to invade Iraq."
TallDave|5.13.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Hey, didn't Iraq used to have one of the world's most repressive
regimes? What happened with that?
Oh, right.
|5.13.07 @ 1:16PM|#
I thought it was interesting that Iran (although certainly "not free") was not on the worst-of-the-worst list.
Rob Levine|5.13.07 @ 8:47PM|#
Sense of scale? What are 600,000 dead Iraqis? Insignificant? Commenters on this site are meaner and more ignorant than the bloggers themselves, who I usually find interesting.
libertreee|5.14.07 @ 9:46AM|#
f Somalia doesn't have a western style government, who's to pay
their western style debt?
I hope no one. Presumably that debt was incurred by the flip
floping ex marxist dictator, Sid Baire.
|5.14.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Grotius,
Your link to the Wash Post editoril implies that this "campaing of
torture" is America's doing. Hogwash! The Iraq Ministry of Interior
is infiltrated by Shi'a militiamen. The US has nothing to do with
that.
Why do you hate America?
|5.14.07 @ 4:13PM|#
2 issues with Rob Levine's sense of scale.
First, Rob Levine is parroting grossly overstated numbers that have
been widely criticized and dismissed.
The 600,000 Lancet number is widely considered fraudulent. Here are
some links, Rob:
1.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
2.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066
3.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/joisting_with_the_lancet_the_p.php
Same for the Lancet's earlier, less outrageous study stating
100,000 Iraqi civilian dead:
1. http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html
2. http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
3.
http://marccooper.typepad.com/marccooper/2004/10/how_many_dead_i.html
But the second, much more important issue is Rob Levine's small and
meager sense of scale and history.
In just one engagement of WWII, the battle of Okinawa, over 7,000
U.S Marines died, over 5,000 American sailors died on their ships,
and over 100,000 Japanese troops died.
This scale of slaughter was common in the Pacific theater, and
throughout WWII, resulting in approximately 400,000 American
combatants killed, well over 1,000,000 Japanese combatants killed,
over 20,000,000 Russian combatants and civilians killed, and you
[probably don't] know the rest of that history.
Even if 600,000 "extra" Iraqi civilians have been killed by
America's war to liberate those unhappy people from
Saddam-Hussein-Iraq's-Biggest-Weapon-Of-Mass-Destruction, as wars
of liberation go this is a relatively tiny body count and a
relatively small price paid in mankind's long slog against tyranny
and toward liberty.
And when compared to the handiwork and bodycount of Rob Levine's
intellectual forebears (100 million killed by Leftist tyrants in
the 20th century according to "The Black Book of Communism"), these
600,000 dead are really just small-ball, aren't they Rob?
Given the ocean's of blood spilled in the pursuit of Rob's
collectivist goals, Rob isn't really so much worried about Iraqi
civilians, as he is determined to scoff and tear down those working
for good, isn't that right Rob?
Back to the Leftist intellectual ghetto, Rob! And back to your
primary information sources: Gasping for Air America &
Pacifica!
Rob Levine|5.15.07 @ 9:21AM|#
"wars of liberation" ? 600,000 Iraqis liberated from their lives; a million refugees liberated from their country? Their ancient country destroyed? And please, IWuzzaLib, don't speak for me. You don't know anything about me beyond what I've said here. Does Freedom House even care about these "liberated" Iraqis? George W. Bush's foray into Iraq is the worst strategic disaster in 2000 years - check Martin van Creveld.
|5.15.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Whether 100,000+ Iraqi lives are worth the liberation of their
country from tyranny, and its deliverance to democracy and human
rights, is a difficult question to answer.
Whether 100,000+ Iraqi lives are worth a brief and bloody
interregnum between one tyrant and another is a very easy question
to answer: of course not.
Frankly, IWuzzaLib, justifying all those bodies by talking about
what you WANTED to happen puts you a lot closer to those in the
Black Book than Rob Levine. Even if he did seize on a shady
statistic.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245