tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post113478427516980174..comments2023-09-19T19:45:50.854+12:00Comments on Spanblather: yet another reason to think nice thoughts about Viggo MortensenSpanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16896745511007816190noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136628654427370682006-01-07T23:10:00.000+13:002006-01-07T23:10:00.000+13:00No worries - frankly sagenz, I have no idea what I...No worries - frankly sagenz, I have no idea what I am any more - clearly Maps hasn't either. I've been reduced to "I know a lot about politics and I know what I don't like". Letting an ideology rule your life is one of those things I don't like. <BR/><BR/>Just to put me even more thoroughly in the "lapsed Marxist" camp - there should be no doubt for any modern Marxist that Lenin utterly betrayed socialism by overthrowing the democratic capitalist govt that was due to take over in Russia, given that by doing so he instituted one of the most murderous tyrannies ever seen, one that killed interest in socialism in every country where people valued their freedom, and damn near brought about the end of Western civilisation (of which Marx was a part and socialism was meant to become a part, before anyone starts prating about imperialism again).<BR/><BR/>PS - just a reminder Span, anytime you want to say "Isn't it time you stopped drinking and went home Milt?", I won't play the belligerent drunk with you. I'm a chronic outstayer of welcomes...Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136627391174412372006-01-07T22:49:00.000+13:002006-01-07T22:49:00.000+13:00maps, I am trying to determine whether you are an ...maps, I am trying to determine whether you are an elaborate parody or you really believe what you are writing. South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, singapore, would be examples of countries successfully embracing capitalist democracy and raising their living standards over the course of decades. I would do a little more research and give it more thought but frankly have seen what stalin and communism achieved and think your arguments for socialism/communism are akin to arguing the earth is flat.<BR/>I hope you are not psychologically scarred Milt by being compared to a wing nut idealist such as myself. <BR/>viszlat!sagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136611387999238792006-01-07T18:23:00.000+13:002006-01-07T18:23:00.000+13:00Cuba as Nazi Germany and Lenin as Pol Pot? Is this...Cuba as Nazi Germany and Lenin as Pol Pot? Is this psycho milt or sagenz talking? Difficult to tell the difference, isn't it?mapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18209906216745532870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136609633396311632006-01-07T17:53:00.000+13:002006-01-07T17:53:00.000+13:00Well, I figured you'd ignore the tip about the wor...Well, I figured you'd ignore the tip about the world refusing to be summed up by an ideology...<BR/><BR/>I'll also skip the fact that you seem to have been too busy filtering my arguments through Marxist dogma to actually note what they were saying, because there are a couple of other points in your comments too interesting to pass up:<BR/><BR/>1. Cuba. It's a criticism often made of Nazi Germany that the people of Germany were willing to put the material comfort that Nazism brought them ahead of basic human freedoms - they gave up their freedoms in exchange for airships, autobahns, full employment and Kraft durch Freude vacations. Socialists are generally pretty contemptuous of this kind of thing - except in the case of Cuba, where the lack of any basic human freedoms can be set against universal health care and found good. Fetch a bucket!<BR/><BR/>2. Capitalist democracy as the highest yet-achieved form of society. Unlike Maps, I think of Karl Marx as just a clever bloke with some good insights into the nature of capitalism, not some kind of Prophet. Unfortunately, Marx was an incurable optimist when it came to socialism being just around the corner, and his view of the prospects for socialist revolution in Russia reflect that. That he was wrong in this case is obvious to anyone but his disciples - consider for a moment for instance, whether the murderous peasant dictatorships established in Marx' name in Russia, China and Cambodia could be considered preferable to "...condemn[ing] the peoples of these countries to the horrors of capitalist development..." Duh-uh - gee, I dunno, what do you think?Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136588101966317982006-01-07T11:55:00.000+13:002006-01-07T11:55:00.000+13:00When psycho milt claims that Marx thought that cap...When psycho milt claims that Marx thought that capitalist democracy was the highest stage of human development short of socialism, and a stage that all societies had to pass through, he is perpetuating a very old myth. <BR/><BR/>I deal with the history of this myth, and with the way that it has been used to defend every imperialist war since the nineteenth century, up to and including the Iraq disaster, in my essay 'This is a socialist war' in the latest issue of 'Red and Green'. <BR/><BR/>But here's a quote from the hairy guy himself, from one of the last things he wrote, the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto:<BR/><BR/>'in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? <BR/><BR/>The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.' <BR/><BR/>What Marx is saying here is that Russia and other 'backward' countries do not necessarily need to go through a stage of capitalist development before it becomes socialist. (A similar argument was of course put forward by lenin and Trotsky in 1917.)<BR/><BR/>To say otherwise is to condemn the peoples of these countries to the horrors of capitalist development in the name of some historical 'necessity' (and indeed, many leftists in NZ have tried to do this, by using a misreading of Marx to justify the expropriation of the Maori people in the 1860s and 70s as historically necessary and progressive).mapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18209906216745532870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136587195354284762006-01-07T11:39:00.000+13:002006-01-07T11:39:00.000+13:00The liberal left dream of harnessing imperialism (...The liberal left dream of harnessing imperialism (usually via the UN) and using it to reform impoverished tyrannies of the Third World into social democratic paradises will always fail, because the relative democracy and prosperity of the First World is built upon the impoverishment of the Third World. You can't have one without the other.<BR/><BR/>Imperialism exists by superexploiting the Third World, and, when put under pressure, it is able to bribe its own working classes at home with a welfare state and higher wages with a portion of its superprofits. These bribes ensure a certain political stability.<BR/><BR/>In the Third World, there are no such goodies on offer, because government is able to recoup so little of the wealth that flows out of economies hopelessly dominated by foreign capital. For this reason, democracy is difficult to maintain - people use their democratic rights to organise and demand reforms which simply cannot be given. Even defensive struggles, like the struggles against the privatisation of water and gas in Bolivia in recent years, can quickly provoke revolutionary crises of the whole system, crises which can usually only be contained by the cessation of democratic rights and massive repression. <BR/><BR/>The only Third World countries which have been able to provide decently for their people have been the ones which have expropriated the property of imperialists and abolished the 'free' market. Cuba, which is virtually the only Third World country with First World standards of health care, is the outstanding example (though the undemocratic nature of the country's political system must be acknowledged). Venezuela is developing into another example. <BR/><BR/>The liberal leftists of the First World are like the liberal Christian missionaries of the nineteenth century - they wring their hands at the abuses of imperialism, then try diligently to implement a kinder, gentler imperialism, which invariably turns out to be far from kind and gentle in practice. <BR/><BR/>In Australasia, the liberal left has in the last few years played a crucial, perhaps even indispensable, role in the rehabilitation of the ideology of militarism and imperialism, which had taken a heavy blow after the defeat of the US and its allies in Indochina in the 1970s. <BR/><BR/>The Australian political establishment marvelled at the way that the 'intervention' in East Timor in 1999 'made the country feel good about its military again', opening up the possibility of new deployments farther afield.<BR/><BR/>The backing of the left for the intervention convinced many people that it couldn't really be motivated by the same old imperialist interests behind the wars of the 60s and 70s. The 'humanitarian' arguments for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were developed in the 1990s by the liberal left, and playtested in East Timor. <BR/><BR/>Since then, the liberal left has championed the extension of aggressive interventionism to the Pacific, by championing the imposition of neo-liberalism at the point of a gun in the Solomons. <BR/><BR/>The Solomons invasion was motivated by a desire to defend imperialist economic interests, maintain a collapsing IMF programme of 'reforms', and prevent the extension of French influence in the Pacific. It also provides a blueprint for the Iraq-style recolonisation of the entire Pacific. 'About time' was Australian Green leader Bob Brown's reaction to the landing of Australian troops. Draw your own conclusions.mapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18209906216745532870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136571983571058372006-01-07T07:26:00.000+13:002006-01-07T07:26:00.000+13:00Cheers Maps. I could get irate about being called...Cheers Maps. I could get irate about being called "liberal left" if it wasn't coming from someone who uses words like "imperialism". Here's a tip - the world won't let itself be summed up by an ideology, no matter how much you'd like it to.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I do happen to think there is a qualitative difference between capitalist democracies and third world dictatorships, religious nutjob theocracies or tribal soups. Marx thought so too, as I recall - in the progress of history, capitalist democracies are the peak, until socialism replaces them. But personally I don't feel like I need Marxist theory to back me up on the superiority of the Western democracies to shitholes like Iraq, Sudan or North Korea - lots of people are already voting with their feet. Contempt for democracy is real easy when you're living in one - I'm not, and boy do you gain a whole new respect for Western Imperialism under those circumstances.Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136538121449841202006-01-06T22:02:00.000+13:002006-01-06T22:02:00.000+13:00maps - i agree with your last comment. which is as...maps - i agree with your last comment. which is as much a suprise to me as you. there is no qualitative difference. the difference is the political acceptability of the US actions. The Iraq war was not politically palatable because it was the US not because people really thought saddam should not be removed. I have no problem with "Globocop". It would be nicer if it was formed of democratic nations with military force but the US carries the can. C'est la vie<BR/><BR/>Tim - how slowly do I have to say the US did not spend $200bn and bring democratic elections to get their hands on $15bn annually of oil. If you believe that you really are stupid. Read the thread. It really is about their own security. They are bright enough to realise jihadism will only be stopped by making prosperous democracies. If they buy oil from a prosperous independent democratic Iraq in 15 years time Bush et al will have achieved their aims. how hard is that to understand. they fought a 50 year cold war ffs.sagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136533700370848412006-01-06T20:48:00.000+13:002006-01-06T20:48:00.000+13:00'i'm far from convinced that some kind of "GloboCo...'i'm far from convinced that some kind of "GloboCop" approach, by the UN or the US or anyone, would be a good idea.'<BR/><BR/>Except in the Solomons, East Timor, and Bougainville, for starters? Without exception, Alliance members that I have spoken to have favoured those globocop interventions, on the grounds that they were examples of imperialist powers acting in a moral manner. <BR/><BR/>There really is no qualitative difference between the arguments deployed by these Alliance members, and by Green MPs like Keith Locke, and the arguments of sage. Or is there?mapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18209906216745532870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136517247609983822006-01-06T16:14:00.000+13:002006-01-06T16:14:00.000+13:00one of the major issues with sage is his idealism....one of the major issues with sage is his idealism. He constantly uses the term 'moral' - morally reasonable way to bring peace food democracy - the moral imperative is to act against tyranny - et al.<BR/><BR/>it's very sweet and all, but exactly how slowly does it need to be said to you sage before you realise that US intervention in Iraq is not based on 'moral considerations' ?<BR/><BR/>30 000 civilian deaths so the Americans can set up a satellite state in the middle east is not a moral consideration. It is greed and arrogance. There is enough information out there on the web for you to learn this yourself sage, otherwise you should consider changing your name. Could I suggest 'headinthesand' ?<BR/><BR/>TimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136513985293823322006-01-06T15:19:00.000+13:002006-01-06T15:19:00.000+13:00*sigh*actually maps I was trying to point out that...*sigh*<BR/><BR/>actually maps I was trying to point out that military intervention is a slippery slope, regardless of the "justification". <BR/><BR/>i can't imagine any criteria which could be applied fairly, and i'm far from convinced that some kind of "GloboCop" approach, by the UN or the US or anyone, would be a good idea. <BR/><BR/>perhaps before you accuse me of being an imperialist you could actually read my comment properly?Spanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16896745511007816190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136513375732746302006-01-06T15:09:00.000+13:002006-01-06T15:09:00.000+13:00What's perhaps most striking here is the level of ...What's perhaps most striking here is the level of agreement between the liberal left, represented by span and psychomilk, and the hard right, represented by the misnamed sage. <BR/><BR/>You appear to differ not over the question of imperialism, but over the conditions under which it's acceptable for imperialism to intervene in countries like Iraq.mapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18209906216745532870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136485077011332442006-01-06T07:17:00.000+13:002006-01-06T07:17:00.000+13:00the thing is if military intervention is justified...the thing is if military intervention is justified where do you stop? it seems to me that the main criteria for intervention (read: invasion) by the USA are:<BR/>1. current political situation is endangering US economic interests directly (i.e. oil in Iraq)<BR/>2. there is a publicly palatable reason eg WMD, current despotic dictator, etc<BR/>Both, not either, must be satisfied.<BR/><BR/>There ought to be a better set of criteria than that, if intervention is to be a tool for improving the world (even if it's by the UN). <BR/><BR/>no worries about the forum - i never would have thought that a post about the wonders of Viggo Moretensen would be amongst my most controversial of the year!Spanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16896745511007816190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136460508780909332006-01-06T00:28:00.000+13:002006-01-06T00:28:00.000+13:00I think that is where we agree to differ. It start...I think that is where we agree to differ. It starts to get circular. I think the moral imperative is to act against tyranny in the same way as a policeman or a citizen has an obligation to protect an individual from violence and you think that soveriegnty/not starting wars trumps acting against tyranny. Different value judgements.<BR/>I wont be gloating but I will be arguing that the long run example justifies more robust action on the likes of Zimbabwe & North Korea.<BR/>an interesting discussion, thank you and thanks span for the forum.sagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136393638767084642006-01-05T05:53:00.000+13:002006-01-05T05:53:00.000+13:00I think I do recognise the reality of power. That...I think I do recognise the reality of power. That's why I think starting a war isn't using power in a morally responsible way to bring peace, food and democracy - instead, it's staking people's lives on a throw of the dice that maybe will come up peace, food and democracy, or maybe will come up any one of a number of even more unpleasant situations than we had before. It could well turn out that the Americans do manage to bring peace, stability, democracy and wealth to Iraq, and I hope they do, and no doubt if that happens there'll be much gloating on right-wing blogs about those of us who thought the invasion was a bad idea. Which would of course be the same kind of gloating a gambler indulges in when, having bet his last dollar, the dice come up 7.Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136368246945826932006-01-04T22:50:00.000+13:002006-01-04T22:50:00.000+13:00thanks span - I was wondering the same thing mysel...thanks span - I was wondering the same thing myself.<BR/><BR/>The UN is no more than the sum of its parts. The Tsunami reaction is a case in point. it was real live australian and then american military forces that reacted with actual help. UN bureaucrats then arrived later with press conferences.<BR/>Blair pushed the US to do something on Kosovo despite there being no US strategic interest. <BR/>imho the right decision was made on Kosovo and the wrong one on Rwanda.<BR/><BR/>Recognise the reality of power. If it is used in a morally reasonable way to bring peace food democracy then surely it is a good thing.<BR/>Russia & China misuse their power anyway. Tibet? This is where I have such a problem with the anti war attitudes. By being so vociferously anti war and anti succour to the oppressed you provide the real dictators with imagined justification for really oppressive actions. There is just no real moral comparison between the actions of the US in bringing democracy to Iraq and the likes of tibet. <BR/>But people are anti the neo conservative actions because of the people like Bush/Cheney/rumsfeld who are leading them. examine the action rather than the motivation. Iraq is free of an oppressive dictator.<BR/><BR/>btw. not sure why neighbours do not have even more of a vested interest than the worlds leading democratic power in achieving security.sagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136355988991969742006-01-04T19:26:00.000+13:002006-01-04T19:26:00.000+13:00nope, no complaints from me, it is interesting to ...nope, no complaints from me, it is interesting to read your debate!Spanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16896745511007816190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136355204141234352006-01-04T19:13:00.000+13:002006-01-04T19:13:00.000+13:00I guess apologies are due to Span for using this t...I guess apologies are due to Span for using this thread like a personal discussion forum, given that we both have our own blogs(!). But she hasn't complained, so:<BR/><BR/>The thing about Clinton is something else I can't figure out. Everyone lays the blame for Rwanda at his door as though the USA is some kind of Armed Offenders Squad that didn't respond to a call-out. Like Yugoslavia, Rwanda is surrounded by other countries on a continent not short of resources. If Rwanda is in trouble, the points of contact are:<BR/>1. its neighbours<BR/>2. other African states<BR/>3. the United Nations<BR/>in that order. The USA does not appear on the list. <BR/><BR/>I have to answer your question with a question, sorry: is it a good idea to invade another country using the pretext of acting to help them when you're in fact simply pursuing your own interests, knowing full well that other powerful countries like Russia or China might figure it's a good trick and try the same thing themselves at some point?Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136295662858849772006-01-04T02:41:00.000+13:002006-01-04T02:41:00.000+13:00and the problem with a bullet through saddam's hea...and the problem with a bullet through saddam's head would be?<BR/><BR/>seriously though - we get somewhere in between the 2 analogies, both of which are simplistic. saddam has not yet had a bullet in the head but use your terms. Knowing that you will be accused of corruption is it still worth it? <BR/><BR/>are you really saying it is better to avoid criticism of acting for the wrong motives by doing nothing?<BR/><BR/>Clinton achieved that in rwanda and 800,000 people died.sagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136265593593547372006-01-03T18:19:00.000+13:002006-01-03T18:19:00.000+13:00I'm not a pacifist sagenz, no chance of me bleatin...I'm not a pacifist sagenz, no chance of me bleating about assault being against the law. I don't think your analogy's a good one, because it doesn't take into account that a powerful country has strategic interests, which don't really come into play for a person witnessing a domestic dispute. <BR/><BR/>I think this is a better analogy. You see a woman across the street being beaten up by their husband, and you go over and put a bullet through his head. But it turns out you have some interests best served by the guy being dead, you plan to take responsibility for the woman and see to it that she turns her life around to how you think she should be living it before you'll let her make decisions for herself again, and the cleanup crew for body disposal is run by your friends at taxpayer expense. I'd say, don't expect to be universally regarded as an unambiguous hero.Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136235048332743492006-01-03T09:50:00.000+13:002006-01-03T09:50:00.000+13:00So if you see a woman across the street being beat...So if you see a woman across the street being beaten up by someone who is obviously their partner and you have the power to intervene, should you? <BR/>Before you try to rebut with the obvious "assault is against the law" - not in all countries. This is a basic moral question. At what point does basic human decency override the legitimate desire to avoid violence.sagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136205365392451122006-01-03T01:36:00.000+13:002006-01-03T01:36:00.000+13:00Because the alternative is going back to war as di...Because the alternative is going back to war as diplomacy by other means. Basic human rights would amount to more than sovereignty if we could trust powerful nations to do the right thing - but we can't. Powerful nations act in their own interests, not out of an altruistic desire to promote democracy. The USA is no different from any other country in this respect. As an example, suppose the Soviet Union had decided it was important to depose dictators in Central America back in the early '80s and and had sent over a large invasion force. No matter how altruistic the motive, the net outcome would have been that all of us left alive would be glowing in the dark.<BR/><BR/>1. France and Italy won democracy for themselves in the 18th and 19th centuries. If Kosovo ever becomes anything but an unpleasant mess it will surprise everyone involved. Japan is perhaps an example, given that they weren't a democracy already, but then the Japanese are unlike everyone else in so many ways it's hard to count.<BR/><BR/>2. Absolutely. I can only hope that the invasion does eventually have a good outcome, in that the Iraqis who do see it as a golden opportunity to bring democracy in manage to beat the ones who prefer to take up arms against the invaders. But that outcome would owe as much to luck as good management.<BR/><BR/>3. What is my point? My point is that when you start a war you're throwing the dice, and gambling other people's lives on the result. Even worse, if you go into it drastically underestimating the capability of your enemy, as Hitler did in Barbarossa, you can make a lot of trouble for yourself - as Bush has done in Iraq. Bush's motives may be positively noble in comparison to Hitler's, but they both made the same mistake, and ended up spending years on a war that they figured would take weeks. It might well turn out that Bush's crap shoot comes up "stable democracy" when the dice stop rolling, but a lot of people will have died in the process and it could still come up "theocracy", "civil war", "failed state", or "military dictatorship". That was foreseeable before the war started and it's exactly why potential crap shooters should think carefully before doing it. But on a positive note at least Bush, unlike Hitler, won't see his crap shoot coming up "best shoot yourself now before they break the bunker door down".Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136194585167430772006-01-02T22:36:00.000+13:002006-01-02T22:36:00.000+13:00There are around 25 million in each of Afghanistan...There are around 25 million in each of Afghanistan & Iraq. no apology required<BR/>Iraq was a construct of the western powers. The UN is flawed because it gives equal votes to dictators and democratically elected leaders. <BR/>Why should soveriegnty be more sacrosanct than basic human rights? It is on that fundamental point that I will approve the removal of any dictator on the way to a less oppressive regime. If you argue in favour of the status quo, that is arguing in favour of dictators.<BR/>1. France - Is that why De Gaulle wanted french troops to enter Paris? Japan, Italy, Kosovo, the list goes on and on...<BR/>2. if you are right that means they are filling your conditions set out in 1. Iraqi's are fighting insurgents & occupiers. It is foriegn terrorists fighting foreign soldiers that are causing most of the mayhem. I have faith the Americans will leave when security permits. <BR/>3. The Americans seem to be taking Iraq very seriously. What is your point. The results are indeed uncertain, but conditions have already demonstrably improved in both Iraq and for democrats throughout the Middle east. Over a longer period of time living standards and life expectancy will rise to normal levels. <BR/><BR/>just answer this question - Why should soveriegnty be more sacrosanct than basic human rights? <BR/>The rest is just fluffsagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136181733274424692006-01-02T19:02:00.000+13:002006-01-02T19:02:00.000+13:00Sagenz, you were the one that connected the Twin T...Sagenz, you were the one that connected the Twin Tower attacks with the invasion of Iraq ("bringing democracy to 50 million people"). If you meant Afghanistan instead, I apologise.<BR/><BR/>Re discussion boards, keep in mind I was talking about the Gulf States, not Egypt or Syria. There aren't any downtrodden working-class types here, they import foreigners for that. It's the general population that has access to discussion boards.<BR/><BR/>I always find it curious when people on the right find objections to invading a sovereign state and imposing your own form of govt on it to be "arguing in favour of oppression and dictators" - after all, it's a non-sequitur. I'll repeat my argument, and you can show me where I argue for oppression and dictatorship:<BR/><BR/>1. You can't give democracy as a gift - if people haven't won it for themselves, it won't mean anything to them.<BR/><BR/>2. When you invade someone else's country to impose democracy, for every democrat you create you'll be creating someone else who's willing to take up arms to eject the occupiers.<BR/><BR/>3. That makes the result unpredictable. It amounts to a crap shoot with other people's lives. On that basis it would be nice to see it taken a little more seriously by the crap shooters.<BR/><BR/>Knock yourself out.Psycho Milthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00779500926576047736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7380804.post-1136117700494180452006-01-02T01:15:00.000+13:002006-01-02T01:15:00.000+13:00Invading Iraq was never about Al Qaeda or Oil or e...Invading Iraq was never about Al Qaeda or Oil or even WMD. It was about the fact that democracies dont attack democracies. We will see in ten years as to whether the strategy has been successful. Ten years of containment after the first gulf war clearly did not work so give the New Iraq a realistic timetable. Independent opinion polls in Iraq give clear majorities approving the removal of Saddam and believing in the future. Your anecdotal opposition to democracy proves nothing more than the fact the ruling classes in your police states have access to dicussion boards<BR/><BR/>I always find it curious when people on the left argue in favour of oppression and dictators. Why is that?sagenzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744450094262287770noreply@blogger.com