Comments on: Meanwhile, just across the border

By: jet

jet — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:22:16 +0000

abb1, Why do you think there wasn’t a candidate who stood for drastically limiting the size of corporations, abolishing US military dominance, and socializing US mineral rights last election? An evil hidden oligarchy in a mountain fortress in the Andes controlling the media? Or because that is batshit crazy-talk to most people?

By: abb1

abb1 — Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:11:16 +0000

Yeah, right, I forgot: Kerry’s plan was to break up the GE into 10,000 small companies, abolish the Pentagon and nationalize Texan oil-wells. Silly me.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:49:19 +0000

abb1, You say that because Kerry was just like Bush? Have you gone mad? Maybe their foreign policy looked somewhat alike, but on domestic issues they couldn’t have been farther apart. That should be proof enough that the evil cabal that controls the world, all from mountain fortresses high in the Andes nestled deep in the farthest recess of your imagination, don’t really exist. And did it also escape you that for the last 15 years the foreign policy of the US government concerning Iraq on both sides of the aisle hasn’t looked that different? But I’ll tell you what. You keep believing that it is all futile and your vote doesn’t count. It is kind of like giving me two votes :D

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:37:09 +0000

What makes Democracy so beautiful is that once a majority agrees with you that “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control”, they can vote to replace those in power. When a majority decides that their “benevolent monarchy” (Wasn’t it Machiavelli who summed up the problems of benevolent monarchies in his “Discourses”?) is a “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control” they can only die by the thousands in a bloodily suppressed revolution. Are you sure your monarch (i.e: a bunch of plutocrats) isn’t playing you for a fool by letting you vote to replace tweedle dee with tweedle dum? Anyway, you’re happy and that’s what counts.

By: roger

roger — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:27:20 +0000

“The right and left agree whole-heartedly on democracy for everyone, but the right seems to be the only ones willing to say fuck it and roll the dice.” I disagree. If this were true, we would certainly not be giving Pakistan 3 billion per annum. I think the basic disagreement about democracy between the left and right is over its meaning as a form of governance, and that primary disagreement spills over into foreign policy. The left believes that democracy entails separation of power, grants the right to organize labor—even across national lines—as strongly as the right to private property, and requires, for its continuance, a strong civil society that tends towards measures to equalize wealth in a given society. I hasten to add, the left doesn’t believe that perfect equality will happen, or even should happen—rather, the egalitarian impulse should, other things being equal, be encouraged. In effect, this means there are mechanisms to lessen inequality, rather than decree equality, vide Rawls. What this means, practically, is that the left believes in engagement with the working and middle class in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt. The right’s inclination is always to link to the military, or to the highest level of wealth—hence, in Iraq, the fascination with Chalabi and the export of his militia, and the neglect of social democrats, or those elements of the Ba’athist party who wished to retain a strong state role in the economy. A good example of the right’s instinct here is the support for Allawi, a former Ba’athist and not a very clean one,and the people around him, who all come from the military ranks of the Ba’athist party. So the left, for example, in supporting democracy in Iran, would presumably support students there, who have been protesting the privatization of higher education. They’d pick up on the mullahs bent to engage in globalization to their own profit. In other words, they’d emphasize traditional left themes. The right’s instinct, on the other hand, is to support Pahlavis, and to mix the ‘liberation’ of Iran with free enterprise rhetoric.

By: c

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:25:11 +0000

But the war between Saddam and the US is already long over. This is a different war and is fought about the independents of Iraq.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:52:02 +0000

Uncle Kvetch, You mis-characterize me. I was for taking action, but I was against the invasion. The US did not invade with the intention of causing massive civilian casulties and the administration thought that civilian deaths would be minimal and that the war would long be over by now. This was a long shot in the first place, and far too risky, obviously so in hindsight. But at least they did something. Another 10 years of Saddam would have resulted in his kids taking over power except now armed with nuclear weapons, no sanctions, and less scruples than their crazy assed dad. All I hear from the left is carping about how wrong the right is. They don’t have a game plan for tackling the issues the right is willing to tackle.

By: c

Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:44:13 +0000

Jet, claiming that the Philippines have become more democratic because of the USA is a bit rich. And about that 99.9% figure. Do you realise how many people who lived in the last 2500 years are still alive. It is a lot more than .1% Also the reason why Saddam could subdue the rebellion after the first Gulf War was by using its airforce and Bush the wiser could have stopped those helicopters if he wanted to. But, and that is the big problem, i don’t see why America would want a democratic Iraq. It is just not in their interest.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:10:23 +0000

The right and left agree whole-heartedly on democracy for everyone, but the right seems to be the only ones willing to say fuck it and roll the dice. Oh, is that the new term? You say “fuck it and roll the dice,” I say “invade a country and kill thousands of innocent people—for their own good, of course.” You’re right, Jet—we are from very different “cultures.” Let’s call the whole thing off.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:46:16 +0000

Ajax, What makes Democracy so beautiful is that once a majority agrees with you that “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control”, they can vote to replace those in power. When a majority decides that their “benevolent monarchy” (Wasn’t it Machiavelli who summed up the problems of benevolent monarchies in his “Discourses”?) is a “A clot of scummy cynical bastards has taken control” they can only die by the thousands in a bloodily suppressed revolution.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:26:08 +0000

Ruds, “How can a government of the people be imposed by an outside agent?” Germany and Japan were some of the most despotic governments in the world before the US forcefully changed them to constitutional democracies. And the US’s success in this (in Japan more so than Germany) was quite astounding. Taiwan, the Philippines, South Korea were all made more democratic through pressure from the US. The list goes on. This is more a debate for historians because in some cases outside force works wonders, and sometimes it doesn’t work at all. Zep, I disagree that democracy is inevitable. Democracy as a concept has only been around for about 2,500 years. Out of those 2,500, I’m going to guesstimate that for the most part, 99.99% of humanity did not live under a democracy. It is the statistically unlikely exception, not the rule. Theocratic rule, like in Iran, has been the norm along with despotic tyrants like Saddam. As for the Gulf War 1, I’d like to hear your argument about how Bush 1 could have removed Saddam. He was planning on it, but the entire coalition would not go along with it. It would have been much more unilateral than Gulf War 2. As for the 1950’s and 1970’s, you are leaving out the context of the cold war. You think 1950’s communism was better than what they had? As for Iran, I agree with you about trying to be supportive without compromising their integrity, but how do you supply arms, money, and training to pro-democratic insurgents without branding them your CIA operatives? And if we know anything about the middle-east, their governments are aces at putting down insurgencies, so they will have to have help. Too bad we can’t magically make the CIA behave while also keeping their actions out of the media.

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:24:58 +0000

Dave f, could you post a few links for me to educate myself more comprehensively, please. From what I’ve read so far it sounds like the government arrests and prosecutes both student rioters and wingnut thugs, but I am open for reassessment. Give me some material. Thanks.

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:01:41 +0000

dave f, right on. I have spent some time in Iran, and their killers and goons scare the shit out of me. The stories that people tell, things I saw myself – that is an evil regime, one which routinely kills, tortures and rapes for dissent. This stuff is not just a Steve Biko out the window ever few years, it is every day and people you know.

By: Dave F

Dave F — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:05:51 +0000

abb1, you are incorrect. Student uprisings and campus protests are put down ruthlessly by police and the feared Basiji, the strong bullyboy arm of the government (esssentially a kind of Hitler Youth). Such students have been flung in jail, beaten, tortured and even killed. Despite your analogy with rednecks, I’m afraid that Iranian political and social structure are not analagous to that of the US. It is spurious. I suggest you read it up a little more comprehensively.

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:03:51 +0000

Jet: Sorry, my fault. I thought your comment referred to John’s original post.