Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Pettytyrant101]

I have often wondered why you thought that Orwell.
As a Scotshobbit whose country has never been successfully invaded by a foreign power the idea of being willing to fight for your freedom to the death if necessary is ingrained. But thats the thing- the people have to be willing to do that for it- its no good bombing the old regime out and then just expecting democracy to spring up in its place- it always has to be fought for, and not just to achieve it but to maintain it.
For those reaons I think a policy of aiding and helping reformers in countries with dictatorial regimes , over decades if necessary, is in the long term a more sure fire way of establishing stable democracies born out of the wishes of the people of that country than an invasion could ever be.

[Orwell]

I have often wondered why you thought that Orwell.

I haven't really. It's me Baiting you --- a bad habit of mine... but I thought it was obvious! by now

As a Scotshobbit whose country has never been successfully invaded by a foreign power the idea of being willing to fight for your freedom to the death if necessary is ingrained. But thats the thing- the people have to be willing to do that for it- its no good bombing the old regime out and then just expecting democracy to spring up in its place- it always has to be fought for, and not just to achieve it but to maintain it.

No, that would be a silly expectation.

For those reaons I think a policy of aiding and helping reformers in countries with dictatorial regimes , over decades if necessary, is in the long term a more sure fire way of establishing stable democracies born out of the wishes of the people of that country than an invasion could ever be.

I tend to agree -- but killing Saddam was no bad thing in the end. Not many Irakis would say that aspect was a bad thing. And the Americans have paid a big price in lives (on both sides including that harmless sounding collateral damage) and in money too. And in Afghanistan too. The Taliban treat women pretty bad you know. And get deluded folk to blow themselves up along with their own, not just their enemies . The arses. The barbarians. I shed no tear for the pricks of this world -- but it's sad innocent folk get killed and hurt in the process. Evil people don't stop doing evil because you're nice to them. These people take that as weakness and don't stop. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

[Pettytyrant101]

Evil people don't stop doing evil because you're nice to them. These
people take that as weakness and don't stop. Just ask Neville
Chamberlain.- Orwell

And evil people dont stop being evil if you fund them, buy their produce and provide them with the arms required to supress their own people either.
Had the west backed reform groups in Iraq, refused to buy his oil or allow any of our businesses to have any dealings with him and not only not sold him weapons but through the UN sought to remove those he already had- his regime would have almost certanly collapsed long ago from within.

[David H]

Since you two have nearly solved this problem, let me make one small quibble.

All people want freedom, you know. Worth doing. Need the will and spine though to achieve it.

That should properly read:
"All people who have food and feel relatively safe from random violence want freedom, you know. Worth doing. Need the will and spine though to achieve it."

Despite what the news often portrays, most people I've met in the world are far more interested in eating and raising their families than in political ideals.

Not that if given a choice, most people wouldn't prefer to live fat and safely in a democracy, but unfortunately that's rarely the outcome when you bomb out their infrastructure and kill about 1% of their population more or less randomly.

If you can believe it, some people actually prefer a stable dictatorship to being bombed.

[Pettytyrant101]

Regardless of the type of government for a country to function everyday people have to be able to go about the general business of getting food, feeding their families and having a home and preferably a job. If those are met, dictator, communism, democracy, theocracy- makes no odds- the majority will not revolt- revolution only happens when a big enough section of the population is being inconvienced to a point where something has to give- most dictators etc whilst brutal in repressing opposition dont let things get this far.

[David H]

And I'd add that to everyday people it takes a lot of inconvenience before having a war fought on top of you looks like a desirable option. At least that's what the refugees say.

[Pettytyrant101]

I'd imagine that is so David- if you can go to work, if your family have a roof over their heads and food on the table for most thats enough not to want to get involved in a bloody struggle to change things. I imagine even less you would want someone else to come and start a bloody conflict on your behalf (especially when they are less than scrupulious about bombing civilians and prefer to make it look like a Hollywood blockbuster and use lovely descriptive terms like 'shock and awe' to describe bombing the crap out of you)

[David H]

Shock and Awe..............

yeah.... the funny thing about that is if you go to a thesaurus and look up either "shock" or "awe" they take you to the category titled Terror. Kind if ironic. I can just imagine an analyst somewhere writing a report, then thinking "Damn, I can't say that anymore!" and picking up his thesaurus to find alternatives.

OK, maybe it's not funny.

[Orwell]

And evil people dont stop being evil if you fund them, buy their produce and provide them with the arms required to supress their own people either.
Had the west backed reform groups in Iraq, refused to buy his oil or allow any of our businesses to have any dealings with him and not only not sold him weapons but through the UN sought to remove those he already had- his regime would have almost certanly collapsed long ago from within.

I haven't disputed this, Petty. I've already agreed with you. Indeed, it's a form of being far too nice, what.

[Orwell]

That should properly read:
"All people who have food and feel relatively safe from random violence want freedom, you know. Worth doing. Need the will and spine though to achieve it."

Despite what the news often portrays, most people I've met in the world are far more interested in eating and raising their families than in political ideals.

Not that if given a choice, most people wouldn't prefer to live fat and safely in a democracy, but unfortunately that's rarely the outcome when you bomb out their infrastructure and kill about 1% of their population more or less randomly.

If you can believe it, some people actually prefer a stable dictatorship to being bombed.

True. But my big picture view is that modern democracies offer the greatest hope of providing (long term) these basic human needs. Not perfectly, at all times, but a world of sound democracies offer the hope of better local governance, and world governance.

[Orwell]

Regardless of the type of government for a country to function everyday people have to be able to go about the general business of getting food, feeding their families and having a home and preferably a job. If those are met, dictator, communism, democracy, theocracy- makes no odds- the majority will not revolt- revolution only happens when a big enough section of the population is being inconvienced to a point where something has to give- most dictators etc whilst brutal in repressing opposition dont let things get this far.

Ask any person, once fed, what they want most and they'd probably say, "Well, I like to be my own boss, accepting I need to co-operate with my neighbours and accept some agreed upon ideas about our society." This does not apply, of course, to tyrants. You know, religious folk, Communists, Fascists. No, just those folk who are happy to eat and have some emancipation from the tyrannical views - and rule - of the few. Democracy is very much about staing off the selfish will to dominate of ideologues. Think Big Picture, guys. (I'll ignor your apologist attitude to tyrants, Petty. )

[David H]

True. But my big picture view is that modern democracies offer the greatest hope of providing (long term) these basic human needs. Not perfectly, at all times, but a world of sound democracies offer the hope of better local governance, and world governance.

And I share your view, as do many, many immigrants.

[Orwell]

Shock and Awe..............

yeah.... the funny thing about that is if you go to a thesaurus and look up either "shock" or "awe" they take you to the category titled Terror. Kind if ironic. I can just imagine an analyst somewhere writing a report, then thinking "Damn, I can't say that anymore!" and picking up his thesaurus to find alternatives.

OK, maybe it's not funny.

One small point. "The words "Shock" and "Awe" don't kill people. It sounds like propaganda to break rsistence. Might save your life if you throw up your arms and surrender before it comes to you. An old method. The Huns would warn cities to give in or die. Most gave in. Saved more killing. In all wars there is the propaganda part of the strategy. Do you guys have any Big Picture thoughts? Here to help.

[Orwell]

True. But my big picture view is that modern democracies offer the greatest hope of providing (long term) these basic human needs. Not perfectly, at all times, but a world of sound democracies offer the hope of better local governance, and world governance.

And I share your view, as do many, many immigrants.

Many people escape tyrannies for democracies. Not many at all - except political or religious ideolgues - go the other way. If only good hearted folk had eyes to see, and a spine to stand up straight with, what a wonderful world it would - eventually - be.

[David H]

It sounds like propaganda to break rsistence.

No. It might be funny if it were just propaganda, but it's a strategic doctrine that's been around for a while of day-and-night bombing and shelling prior to an invasion that in theory will reduce the opposition to jelly, sometimes literally. I know people who were there. Enough said.

[Pettytyrant101]

Jumping off topic a mo just to show this- for an ad for a newspaper its bloody genius.

[Orwell]

It sounds like propaganda to break rsistence.

No. It might be funny if it were just propaganda, but it's a strategic doctrine that's been around for a while of day-and-night bombing and shelling prior to an invasion that in theory will reduce the opposition to jelly, sometimes literally. I know people who were there. Enough said.

Both propaganda and strategy. If it breaks resistance quicker, it's effective - and less die. War is Hell... and all... Look, none of it's nice. Nor am I your usual advocate for invasion. As to Irak and Afghanistan, well, maybe other things could have been done - but how long to you tinker when regimes are as evil as these?

[Pettytyrant101]

Until they start blocking you getting their oil and start selling it to Russia and China instead.

[Orwell]

Jumping off topic a mo just to show this- for an ad for a newspaper its bloody genius.

George Orwell would say, "I told you so!"

[Pettytyrant101]

Historian David Starkey on QT talking about intervention in Syria- I often find his views old fashioned and even on occasion offensive (such as when he said the London riots were caused by whites trying to be black) however I think he may have a point here and its not one I had ever considered before. I can certainly see however how a historian could draw the conclusion.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Sigh! It looks like I'll have to go through this post by post!

The Huffington Post has a good article about the fear-mongering (and arguably war-mongering) going on in the U.S. media right now about Iran. I don't know how much coverage this has gotten in other countries but Americans are being bombarded with news about Iran's imminent nuclear arsenal despite the fact that the evidence doesn't bear out this interpretation. But there's a disturbing number of public figures and (people who are supposedly) journalists making a case against Iran that sounds eerily like the case against Iraq and it's "WMDs" in 2002-03.

The Iranian Regime is even uglier than was the one in Irak. At least Saddam's Irak (until the end when he was grasping for straws) was a largely Secular Regime. I hope the minute Israel confirm that the Iranians are building a Bomb, they bomb the offending plants. I'm not a fan of the State of Israel, but at leart it is a largely Secular Regime. I'm more trusting of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Brittain, America, Germany and France for the same reason. They could nuke you - but not because God told 'em to, or because Social Unrest risks bringing their countries crashing down and so get all North Korean belligerent and so turn internal hatred outwards.

Also Syria... What will happen if Assad falls? I hope not another Theological Kingdom.... Scary.

The drums for war are being beaten by the very same "Neocons" who got us into the last 2 rubbish wars.

It all comes down to this. The US opened this Pandora's box, and remain to this day the only nation to have used Nukes on another country; so the ultimate responsibility lies at the feet of the US Military Industrial Complex. Not to mention that the US War Machine is hard at work developing "Battle-field Nukes" which they will then sell to whoever can afford them **cough...Saudi Arabia**

Israel has Nukes, Pakistan has Nukes. And Israel has been looking for an excuse to start a war with Iran for ages. Fair is Fair. The only reason Iran wants Nukes is as a deterrent to an attack from Israel.

The Iranian government is given to overblown hyperbole, but they aren't stupid. They know that any attempt at a first strike will lead to the annihilation of their country by the US and Israel. Iran does NOT want a war with the West because they know they would lose. What they want is to deter the US and Israel from attacking them.

If Iraq had Nukes, the US would not have been so keen to invade, occupy, and commit mass-murder in Iraq.

All this hype for war in the media is as baseless as the drum-up for the war with Iraq (and Afghanistan too for that matter), and the flames are being fanned by Israel and the nut-cases in the US Right Wing of the Establishment. Anyone that believes the propaganda hasn't been paying attention.

YOU, of all people, should know this Orwell. I think you should consider changing your username to Orwell is an Idiot, because clearly you sop up the propaganda like a cat laps up milk.

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

Israel might not be a theocracy, but I have a hard time describing a country that requires its citizens to swear religious oaths of loyalty as secular.

Yeah, for all intents and purposes Israel is a Theocracy.


GB

[Pettytyrant101]

Sigh! It looks like I'll have to go through this post by post! - GB

Made my heart soar to read that! Welcome back GB!

[Gandalf's Beard]

No less Secular than America, Eldo. For all the naysaying, America is a largely Secular State in it's system of government. Though this conversation shows how 'broad' statements can never be totally correct.

For all intents and purposes America is a semi-Theocratic State. Despite constitutional injunctions against religious tests for holding office, the US has by tradition had a religious test for holding office. Politicians are compelled to avow their commitment to God, and not just any God, the CHRISTIAN God.

Hell will freeze over before an Atheist will be allowed to hold a higher political office.

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

Sigh! It looks like I'll have to go through this post by post! - GB

Made my heart soar to read that! Welcome back GB!

Yes, well it'll take a while. Don't expect too many posts all at once.


GB