US Neoconservitism

Von

Originally posted by Sand
Eomer youve got to read The Stone Canal by...Iain Banks I think. Its a SF novel but its got a nice sarcastic view of the Socialist attempts to take over the world:)

Er, no it's definitely not an Iain Banks book. Are you sure you've read it? Most people remember who wrote the books they've read.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Personally, I very much doubt that if the British were unable to pacify the tiny area of South Armagh with upwards of 70,000 troops, then I don't see the "coalition" doing it with less than a platoon per square mile. Time will tell, but it looks to me like a brutal, but undoubtedly ordered civic society is well on its way to becoming a fractured and failed state like Afghanistan.

It was more like 25,000 troops max throughout the whole of NI actually, plus about 12,000 RUC plus loyalist paramilitaries versus about 800 (?) active IRA people.

dahamsta

Totally off-topic, but I have to ask: Is Sand a troll? I find it difficult to believe anybody could be that coherent (as in spelling, grammer, etc) and that stupid (as in surely nobody could be stupid enough to believe this rubbish) at the same time. This is a genuine question.

adam

Vader

Reading up on the neo-cons its interesting to see what their actual policy is behind the "Neo-Nazis" hate. Whats wrong with a superpower like the US actively encouraging democratic reform of tyrannical states, confronting potential enemies with pre-emptive strikes before they become a serious problem - one of the Neo-Con lads being interviewed there said that in the war on terrorism milatary operations must go hand in hand with bringing about an end to oppressive regimes in the middle east and further afield, fighting terrorism whilst also removing its causes. Who disagrees with that?

This was the most interesting single quote I found on this thread but it belongs in the humour forum.
Encouraging democrtatic reform is great, but the US doesnt. Sadly most of the dictators in the world since 1950(Im excluding Africa because I havent studied african political history in detail) came to power with the support of the US.

Also, how has the US removed the causes for terrorism?

sovtek

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I had a few drinks with a diplomat of my acquaintance recently and the topic of PNAC and the Neoconservitivc movement came up. After two minutes of painful and apologetic caveats pre-empting that he was about to say something very politically incorrect, he finally came out with an observation; the leading Neocons are almost all Jews. Not just that, but all are strong supporters of the Israeli Likud party.

From this he further observed that while neutralizing such regimes as Iraq, Syria or Iran may be in US interests to one degree or other, they are particularly in Israel’s interests. All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving?

Just thought I’d throw that one out there

This kinda backs up somewhat your friends assertions.

sovtek

Originally posted by Hobbes
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001.

Thats definetly going in my signature.

Hobbes

Originally posted by sovtek
Thats definetly going in my signature.

Actually after posting it..

I orginally saw the post on an Israili news site (as well as all the anti-israili sites), long time ago.

I checked for the source again and found it had vanished. After much searching I can't find where it orginally came from. Of course one side claims it is from Sharon while the other claims it's all fabricated.

It may also be somewhat out of context via translation without the whole argument it was based on. However judging from Sharons actions over the last couple of years alone I could well believe he said it.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

It was more like 25,000 troops max throughout the whole of NI actually, plus about 12,000 RUC plus loyalist paramilitaries versus about 800 (?) active IRA people.

Odd, I heard the 70,000 figure (at the height of the troubles) on a fairly recent C4 news programme. No matter, even with 25,000 troops on the ground that's roughly a reinforced company per square mile of territory. Compare that with less than a platoon per square mile in Iraq. My point was merely to illustrate that if a successful occupation could not sustain order in N. Ireland, where there is no language barrier, nowhere near as inhospitable environmental conditions in Iraq- then the prospects for coalition success must naturally be pessimistic.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Were I an American, I would quite probably be neoconservitive. Of course I’m not, I’m a European, and so to support a doctrine of apparent supremacy by a foreign power, from which I am almost completely disfranchised from, would make little sense to me. So, why do some Europeans do exactly that?

I don't see why the ideology can't be transposed to Europe. There are European conservatives so why not neo-conservitives. Obviously this would involve promoting European interests rather than US ones, but in the fashion of the US neocons. So far Europe has not acted in this way but this is likely because political union has not yet advanced to the stage where there could be a large European army.

Would anyone be in favour of such a development?

Vader

My basic understanding of neocon philosophy is that: we are the strondest country in the world, are ideals and beliefs are the best in the world and thus we shouldnt be ashamed of of using our power to influence and protect the world.

Am I understanding it correctly ( I'm adressing any neocons/americans on boars)?
How is this any different to any major world power's veiw from any time in history eg British empire, Nazi Germany,USSR?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I don't see why the ideology can't be transposed to Europe.

Oviously the two reasons why it cannot be transposed to Europe is because Europe is nether a cohecive political body and neither is it a major military power.

On the former, the European Union is still a collection of nation states that have their own agendas and, more importantly, foreign policies. Some, such as the UK and Poland are ardently pro-US - Europe’s wise Greeks if you will. Some, such as France and Germany (so-called old Europeans), are highly sceptical of US motives and strongly opposed to the idea of a US dominated World. Then there are nations such as Ireland that will attempt to play both sides of the fence. Additionally some, such as Ireland or Sweden have a strong history of neutrality, while others do not.

In short, it would make consensus on any military policy difficult, if not impossible.

Secondly, there is no European Military - there are a number of embryonic military bodies (to which, I’m told, Ireland has contributed a total of three officers), but no European military as such. Whatever militaries do exist in the constituent nations are often small as well as being poorly trained and equipped.

Will this situation change? On the face of it no. Given this, it’s foolish to try to predict future history.

On a side note, Europe did have her own neocon movement once - the nineteenth century. It was a period euphemistically sometimes called la belle epoch, between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the start of the First World War - a century where Europeans went forth and brought civilization to all those funny dark people in Africa and Asia. Whether they liked it or not. And if they didn’t, the Europeans had gatling guns which were far more effective in battle than native spears, arrows and sharpened mangos.

Omnia mutantur et nihil mutantur, I suppose...

SkepticOne

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Oviously the two reasons why it cannot be transposed to Europe is because Europe is nether a cohecive political body and neither is it a major military power.

That is why I said "So far Europe has not acted in this way but this is likely because political union has not yet advanced to the stage where there could be a large European army."

What it means is that the idiology would manifest itself in a different way. The European equivalent of a neocon would be a right-wing integrationist and would advocate further development of the ERRF.

Cork

Originally posted by SkepticOne
The European equivalent of a neocon would be a right-wing integrationist and would advocate further development of the ERRF.

I think that a common EU army or foriegn policy will not be foreseeable. They are now 25 countries in the EU. In the post Iraq situation - the EU is devided.

The whole Berlin / Boston debate is a crucial issue in the EU.

The UK and Ireland are much closer to Boston (IMO).

DadaKopf

We may be close to Boston, but are we close to Washington? I honestly don't think so.

The Boston/Berlin argument was a cultural and economic comparison, as well as some unimaginative alliteration. But are we that close to America politically? I very much doubt it.

We're too tied up in the Gordian knot of cross-Atlantic politics to actually owe more or less allegiance to any side.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by dahamsta
Totally off-topic, but I have to ask: Is Sand a troll? I find it difficult to believe anybody could be that coherent (as in spelling, grammer, etc) and that stupid (as in surely nobody could be stupid enough to believe this rubbish) at the same time. This is a genuine question.

adam

I find Sand's views to be eminently rational and considered. Although he's a bit too soft on terror for my liking.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I had a few drinks with a diplomat of my acquaintance recently and the topic of PNAC and the Neoconservitivc movement came up. After two minutes of painful and apologetic caveats pre-empting that he was about to say something very politically incorrect, he finally came out with an observation; the leading Neocons are almost all Jews. Not just that, but all are strong supporters of the Israeli Likud party.

From this he further observed that while neutralizing such regimes as Iraq, Syria or Iran may be in US interests to one degree or other, they are particularly in Israel’s interests. All this might lead one to ask who’s foreign policy are the Neocons serving?

Just thought I’d throw that one out there

So is this another reason to hate neocons, or another reason to hate Jews?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
I think that a common EU army or foriegn policy will not be foreseeable.

Indeed. As I pointed out it would be foolish to attempt to foresee Europe’s future in this regard. Foreseeing the dramatic nature of the collapse of communism in the early eighties would have been just as impossible. Anything can happen.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So is this another reason to hate neocons, or another reason to hate Jews?

Cheap shot, Biffa. You’ve had no problem criticising other ethnic groups in the past yourself, so it’s a little hypocritical of you to chastise anyone for doing likewise. No one should be above criticism.

You’re growing far to politically correct in your old age, Biffa...

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You’re growing far to politically correct in your old age, Biffa...

Now that's a cheap shot.

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So is this another reason to hate neocons, or another reason to hate Jews?

Obviously it's a reason to speak out against what the neo-cons are doing along with the Israeli and American government.
To try and connect anti-semitism with opposition to Israel and America is a tired strategy with their apologists.
A newer one is to paint anyone who criticizes Bush as a "Bush hater" and suggest that they are somehow irrational.
It, like the former tired strategies, will be debunked again and again. Unfortunetly, like Bush, his apologists will repeat something so often as to make it fact.

Sand

Apologies for the long delay in replying. I was having my connection upgraded.

Corinthian

Europe already had a long tradition of liberal and democratic values so it’s a poor example.

Do you really think that is true of Europe in 1945? Id disagree but its a side issue so lets not write a book about it.

Corinthian

The end justifies the means?

No, Im not comftable with that philosophy. Its obviously false that you can do *anything* to achieve some particular goal, no matter how worthy the goal and remain justified. Look at the palestinians. An absolutely just cause - but I dont let that confuse me as to the evil of their terrorism.

In this particular case if you had to lie to people and tell them they were under threat when they werent to motivate them to throw down someone like Saddam and give Iraqis a chance at a genuine representitive government then its more an indictment of the people who had to be lied to in my eyes.

Corinthian

Then you would have to accept Iran, amongst other nations, as a democracy. After all you can’t bend the rules for one ‘democracy’ and not for another just because you don’t like them.

Iran is....tricky:) On the one hand youve an elected President and an elected Parliment. On the other hand youve a religious Leader who is not elected by the people but has a wide range of duties and powers and appears to "outrank" the elected President, who had a constitutional directive under article 4 of the Iranian constitution to ensure that no laws made by the elected parliment are in any way contradictary to Sharia - Islamic religious law and has the Regime Expediency Council which examines any laws which the elected parliment makes and has the power to wholly reject any law it does not believe to be in accordance with Sharia - this is an unelected body, appointed by the Leader.

I wouldnt quite call Iran a theocracy but it is fair to say the Islamic clergy have a direct role in lawmaking - Would you happily describe Italy as a democracy if any and all laws made in it had to be okayed by the Pope and his Cardinals first, regardless of public opinion?

Iran though is not clear cut, there is grounds for hope that internal reformers can liberalise the government and reduce the level of human rights abuses and misconduct by the government.

Corinthian

Stop with the drugs Sand.

Just making the point that if you ( It was Sovtek I was talking to though) want to dig back through history looking for people to blame you can go back as far as you want. Hell, I didnt even go to colonial times did I?

Bonkey

Could you remind me why this is :

a) A good success
and
b) Not a perfect example of terrorism?

Well, sure thing Bonkey.

Without getting into terrorism/milatary action *again* , lets allow that NATO was targeting milatary targets and wasnt actually attempting to find and bomb as many childrens parties, discos, coffee shops, and shopping centers as they could.

And given the fall of Milosevic that answers A.

Bonkey?

So, while you can see it as a shining success of the US promoting democracy, I'd be somewhat more judgemental and ask at what price does democracy become too expensive? Exactly where do we draw the line? At what point does the cost to a people outweigh the advantages of giving them the future you want them to have???

We draw the line at common sense. Afghanistan was easy to topple, so was Iraq - both regimes were toppled extremely easily. Now some maniacs are now arguing that this means that an attack against North Korea is now on the cards - this is clearly wrong. It would be far, far, far more difficult and devastating to attack North Korea. Hence you do not do it - you use other means for that particular problem.

Bob?

Utter rubbish Sand. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly shining examples of democracy- nor are Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia- yet all are staunch US allies. The neocons believe in democratic allies when it suits them, and in totalitarian allies when it suits them. There are no principles at the core of their policy except American power.

Pakistan became a US ally a few hours after they decided Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. The undemocratic nature of it and Saudia Arabia demonstrate exactly why they are not allies on which the US can rely - see Iraq. A lot of Bin Ladens support comes out of Pakistan, a lot of anger is generated by the regime there and with the US seen beside the regime they become an easy target of the anger, the same - even moreso - in Saudi.

Id imagine theyre keeping Pakistan sweet because they have to follow Bin Laden into its territory, where he enjoys a lot of support. As for the Saudis the honeymoon is over last I heard.

Bob?

As for your comment about Al-Qaeda- if you're naive enough to think that killing 1,000 Al-Qaeda terrorists means the global figure goes down by 1,000- then you obviously haven't read into the history of paramilitary/terrorist groups.

Youve not been reading have you? Killing Al Queda is the short term action, eroding their support is quite clearly a long term misson - which will have to be taken up by the next few administrations at least.

Unless of course youve another idea of how to deal with 1000 fanatical, well led and utterly murderous fundamentalists who have a proven ability to pentrate the US and undertake large scale terrorist attacks inflicting thousands of casualties with only 19 men and box cutters in the here and now?

Von

Er, no it's definitely not an Iain Banks book. Are you sure you've read it? Most people remember who wrote the books they've read.

1-0 to Von. And they said all his weekends of memorising books titles and authors wouldnt pay off.

Dhamasta?

Totally off-topic, but I have to ask: Is Sand a troll? I find it difficult to believe anybody could be that coherent (as in spelling, grammer, etc) and that stupid (as in surely nobody could be stupid enough to believe this rubbish) at the same time. This is a genuine question.

Genuine answer - No.

Vader

This was the most interesting single quote I found on this thread but it belongs in the humour forum.

Now this really hurt coming from you, given your opinion of the IRA.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Do you really think that is true of Europe in 1945? Id disagree but its a side issue so lets not write a book about it.

I didn’t say it was true of 1945; only that Europe already had a long tradition of liberal and democratic values. The Middle East has not.

No, Im not comftable with that philosophy. Its obviously false that you can do *anything* to achieve some particular goal, no matter how worthy the goal and remain justified. Look at the palestinians. An absolutely just cause - but I dont let that confuse me as to the evil of their terrorism.

In this particular case if you had to lie to people and tell them they were under threat when they werent to motivate them to throw down someone like Saddam and give Iraqis a chance at a genuine representitive government then its more an indictment of the people who had to be lied to in my eyes.

So the end doesn’t justify the means except for when it does, is what you’re saying. As for when it is acceptable, you seem to define this as when a group (such as a well-meaning oligarchy) decides that a lesser evil is acceptable because of the good it will bring.

Iran is....tricky:) On the one hand youve an elected President and an elected Parliment. On the other hand youve a religious Leader who is not elected by the people but has a wide range of duties and powers and appears to "outrank" the elected President, who had a constitutional directive under article 4 of the Iranian constitution to ensure that no laws made by the elected parliment are in any way contradictary to Sharia - Islamic religious law and has the Regime Expediency Council which examines any laws which the elected parliment makes and has the power to wholly reject any law it does not believe to be in accordance with Sharia - this is an unelected body, appointed by the Leader.

All democracies have undemocratic institutions and policies. The Irish Senate and the British House of Lords are two that spring to mind. Numerous laws exist that will also ride roughshod over democratic rights, for reasons of national security.

I wouldnt quite call Iran a theocracy but it is fair to say the Islamic clergy have a direct role in lawmaking - Would you happily describe Italy as a democracy if any and all laws made in it had to be okayed by the Pope and his Cardinals first, regardless of public opinion?

Yet not too long ago our ‘priest ridden’ isle held immense influence over Ireland. DeValera even sought the advice of the clergy when drafting the constitution. Should we have had a regime change then?

Iran though is not clear cut, there is grounds for hope that internal reformers can liberalise the government and reduce the level of human rights abuses and misconduct by the government.

Students are today demonstrating and rioting to force change in Iran. Thirty years ago, our parent’s generation we doing much the same in the West.

Nonetheless, I’d consider either Iran or Israel (to which the comparison was made) to be both democracies - just not very Western ones - Iran for the reasons already mentioned and Israel for its theocratic approach to citizenship (and associated rights).

Just making the point that if you ( It was Sovtek I was talking to though) want to dig back through history looking for people to blame you can go back as far as you want.

Fair enough.

Vader

Jee Sand Ive miss judged you, you are possibly the only pro-american Ive seen on boards who can logically defend his position. I dont agree with you but will treat you with far more resprect.

Ive asked Biffa Bacon to define the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist, so far he hasnt got round to it;) and I dont think he will. So Im askink you Sand for your definition as I see when you want to you can be quiet intelligent.

I think of a freedom fighter(heres those IRA veiws you disapprove of) as somebody who has been oppressed and is jusified to fight his oppressors so that he might end his oppression(attacks on soldiers) or transfer the suffering from his people to those who oppress him(attacks on civilians) so that they might rethink their position ie they might accept what they are doing is wrong and so stop.

Why should he have to fight a pitch battle when most modern wars are won by bombs deployed by soldiers their victums never see?

A terrorist has an agenda which he is willing to force onto people. His attacks focus on the psycological impact(shock and awe, if you will) of those actions,
ie who dies and how they die is more imporant than how many die. Terrorism involves both the use of force or the threat of force(remind you of any countries foreign policy)

Sand

I didn’t say it was true of 1945; only that Europe already had a long tradition of liberal and democratic values. The Middle East has not.

Im confused. But as I said its a side issue re: Europe. As for the ME not having a long tradition of liberal and democratic values, its true to a certain extent - particularly the democratic.

So the end doesn’t justify the means except for when it does, is what you’re saying. As for when it is acceptable, you seem to define this as when a group (such as a well-meaning oligarchy) decides that a lesser evil is acceptable because of the good it will bring.

I dont like having my views summed up in a slogan tbh.... but however inaccurately yeah. Dont act like Im a radical or scary for thinking like that - I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots, a world where it is considered crazy to think that If war is justified to protect *our* human rights and rights to representive government then logically war is justified to protect *other* peoples human rights and rights to representitive government. The end justifies the means has been used to justify restricting the right to free speech for the greater good, in the case of incitement to hatred, in Germany in particular where they are rather sensitive to such things. People have always believed that the ends justifies the means to a *certain* extent. Even you do Corinthian, every time you get into a motor vehicle.

All democracies have undemocratic institutions and policies. The Irish Senate and the British House of Lords are two that spring to mind. Numerous laws exist that will also ride roughshod over democratic rights, for reasons of national security.

Agreed, often as in the case of the House of Lords pretty much an accident of history, but usually reinvented as a "moderating" force to prevent any radical shifts occuring too fast. Their powers are pretty restricted compared to the Iranian REC - the Irish senate for example can only delay bills AFAIK tho my knowlede of the senate is such that I stand ready to be corrected, and their remit is broader than simply ensuring that all laws are in compliance with the institutionalised faith - one way or the other.

Yet not too long ago our ‘priest ridden’ isle held immense influence over Ireland. DeValera even sought the advice of the clergy when drafting the constitution. Should we have had a regime change then?

Most definitly to my mind. Church and state should always be seperate if the state is to represent all its citizens fairly. Unfortunately given the deal struck with the Church over compensation claims it seems the regime change in Ireland is still behind schedule.

Students are today demonstrating and rioting to force change in Iran. Thirty years ago, our parent’s generation we doing much the same in the West.

And hopefully they will be successful , though sadly every apparent victory by the reformers has been met by increased crackdowns on them by the conservitives. The best thing the west can do ( US and the rest ) is to keep an arms length relationship with reform movements in Iran, support them but dont give the conservitives the exscuse they need to brand them as foreign infiltrators etc etc.

Re: Vader

Whilst the thread is fairly off topic anyway Im not too mad about dragging it even further off topic, especially into terrain that Ive already travelled dozens of times. If you want to open a new thread maybe or pm me, grand.

Vader

I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots

If ppl *need* to be lied to in order to get their support then you dont have their support. American neocons want to police the world for the common good. If America some day actually finds a just caus nobody will trust them because if their track record.
The hole boy who cried wolf.

I think the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is very on topic because the main idea behind neocons is the war on terrorism and you, biffa bacon and qadafi all refuse to acknowlage these two groups as seperate entities because it destroys the whole war on terrorism doctrine.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots, a world where it is considered crazy to think that If war is justified to protect *our* human rights and rights to representive government then logically war is justified to protect *other* peoples human rights and rights to representitive government.

You may indeed agree with such a defence of democracy, but if a democracy must lie to her citizens to do so does it not become a mockery of the very thing it claims to defend? We’re not discussing laws curtailing racism or which side of the road we may drive on (both of which would have been adopted without the need to lie to the electorate), but the conscious waging of war on another nation.

Additionally you should consider another possibility: if you consider recent events to be a justifiable untruth designed to remove a despot, who are you to say that this reason - the removal of a despot - is not simply another layer of misinformation, designed to fool you?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I honestly wish I didnt live in a world where people had to be lied to/misinformed to convince them to overthrow despots,

But the issue is not why we had to be lied to, but rather whether or not is should be acceptable for a government to lie in order to get its way.

An easy parallell is whether or not it is reasonable to want the US to be in any way shackled by he UN. The US, and the supporters of individual actions, say "no". However, the greater issue arising from this is why anyone else should be considered bound by the UN.

a world where it is considered crazy to think that If war is justified to protect *our* human rights and rights to representive government then logically war is justified to protect *other* peoples human rights and rights to representitive government.

And if there was the slightest possibility that the war was actually fought for those reasons - or that the decision to fight was made for those reasons - , I'd consider that such a belief was somewhat reasonable grounds to support the actions.

However, it would still leave a significant unanswered :

If it is right and proper for the US to use its might in a manner it believes to be acceptable, for a goal it sees as desirable, then surely it is hypocritical in the extreme to suggest that other nations would be wrong for exercising the same rights, just because we happen do disagree with what they're doing or how they are doing it.

While I happen to believe quite firmly in the principles behind the various declarations of Human Rights, I also happen to believe that enforcing our vision of what is right and wrong on any other culture, through non-peaceful means is little better than the colonisations performed in the MIddle Ages in the name of "religion".

Lets not forget that you would also seem to have suggested that it is acceptable for a government to lie about the reasons for its actions when the public mightn't accept the truth as sufficient reason to support what the government sees as "the right thing".

Surely, even if you fully support the current actions, you can see the inherent risks and dangers of advocating such a system as an acceptable way to continue?

Sand

If ppl *need* to be lied to in order to get their support then you dont have their support. American neocons want to police the world for the common good. If America some day actually finds a just caus nobody will trust them because if their track record.

Agreed. But that sounds like an argument for the US being right in ignoring world opinion if they feel they are right - seeing as the world will always think theyre lying the worlds opinion isnt a useful barometer, and as sparks I think noted, under the nuremberg principles you are not bound by anyone opinions or laws if you feel there are crimes against humanity occuring.

I think the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is very on topic because the main idea behind neocons is the war on terrorism and you, biffa bacon and qadafi all refuse to acknowlage these two groups as seperate entities because it destroys the whole war on terrorism doctrine.

Ive not ignored definitions of terrorism. Ive spent weeks attempting to explain why people trying to blow up childrens parties are terrorists, not freedom fighters - Im totally sick of Israel/Palestine threads and the same crap that gets regugitated in them constantly. Hence my unwillingess to get into another. But just so you dont feel left out.....

Your definitions of terrorism and freedom fighters defeat the purpose of definitions. They ought to be objective. Yours are hopelessly subjective. I can interpret them to brand anyone and everyone a terrorist, or I can use them to brand anyone and everyone a freedom fighter.

I prefer a simpler, clearer set of definitions. A Terrorist deliberately targets civillians. A Military ( This includes guerillas/freedom fighters who operate according to milatary principles ) does not deliberately target civillians, their targets are milatary/economic. Note that a milatary is not just a government run group with guns and tanks - Serbian forces deliberately targeted civillians, they were terrorists/war crinimals.

Its that simple to my mind. Those sort of definitions arent popular however with those who like to talk crap like "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" and similar drivel.

You may indeed agree with such a defence of democracy, but if a democracy must lie to her citizens to do so does it not become a mockery of the very thing it claims to defend?

As you noted yourself most modern democracies contain checks and balances to protect democracy from itself - the Nazis were the largest party in Germany, democratically elected, Haider was democratically elected but was viewed as a threat to European democracy regardless, and there are laws in germany that prevent any party with less than 5% of the national vote to take their seats in the reichstag afaik.

Democracy without liberal values is not inherently better than dictatorships, ethnic minorities did better in Titos Yugoslavia than they did in the democratic Yugoslavia riven by ethnic hatreds - Japanese-Americans learned this when they were interned, as did African Americans for a long time after they were "free".

Simply because a majority ( and I allow that to prevent pointless debate as there was never any serious barometer of public opinion taken that didnt sway with the last opinion piece ) didnt support a war to liberate Iraq does not make the liberation of Iraq any less just, as wholly reprehensible decisions have been reached democratically and often governments have had to be more progressive than their citizens - didnt some US colleges have to be opened to African Americans using milatary force, when a majority would have no doubt disaproved?

Additionally you should consider another possibility: if you consider recent events to be a justifiable untruth designed to remove a despot, who are you to say that this reason - the removal of a despot - is not simply another layer of misinformation, designed to fool you?

Certainly possible - I dont imagine the likes of Bush crying himself to sleep at night for the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam, but neither does the oil explanation hold up to examination as far as I can see - the costs, political and economic far outway any benefit from access to Iraqi oil - which they were simply buying before the war anyway.

The reserve currency doesnt make sense as it doesnt explain why Blair went along with it and indeed argued for the war so passionately.

The latest explanation is actually credible - helping out Israel, but how does it help Israel to have major conflicts breaking out in their backyard, especially when there were reasonable fears Saddam might chuck a few more missles at Israel in the meantime or that given the opposition of many arab states that a larger war might break out. Sure Saddam gave cash to the families of palestinian terrorists, but it doesnt seem worth all the risk for that.

An easy parallell is whether or not it is reasonable to want the US to be in any way shackled by he UN. The US, and the supporters of individual actions, say "no". However, the greater issue arising from this is why anyone else should be considered bound by the UN.

I think I tacked your first point above in reply to Corinthian, as for this you could reverse it right around - as Neocons have done and ask if other states seem to feel theyre not bound by the UN why should the US? Granted the US invented the UN, and indeed its predecessor the League of Nations but both have failed....perhaps the US is simply recognising the facts?

While I happen to believe quite firmly in the principles behind the various declarations of Human Rights, I also happen to believe that enforcing our vision of what is right and wrong on any other culture, through non-peaceful means is little better than the colonisations performed in the MIddle Ages in the name of "religion".

We shouldnt let respect for others culture blind us to the wrongs that may be institutionalised in that culture. Nor should we diservice others cultures by assuming such wrongs are somehow part and parcle of the culture. Claims that arabs arent ready or willing to embrace democracy remind me of no doubt well meaning people who honestly believed the Irish and others werent capable of ruling themselves.

Surely, even if you fully support the current actions, you can see the inherent risks and dangers of advocating such a system as an acceptable way to continue?

As I said above a representitive government sometimes has to be more progressive than its citizens - and has to be prepared to take action against the populist grain..... the end justifies the means sometimes. Northern Ireland needs less Ian Paisleys and a few more John Humes, regardless of whether the democratic majority believe Paisley is going to be the one to lead them to the promised land. Id certainly be happy to lie if it meant Paisley and his republican counterparts were left behind in the forthcoming NI elections. Wouldnt you?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I prefer a simpler, clearer set of definitions. A Terrorist deliberately targets civillians. A Military ( This includes guerillas/freedom fighters who operate according to milatary principles ) does not deliberately target civillians, their targets are milatary/economic.

Thats funny, cause when I mentioned that the US deliberately targetted civilians in Yugoslavia recently, you posted back implying that you didn't want to go into another discussion of explaining why that wasn't terrorism.

It was deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian resources. It did not aim to bring about the regime change by economic or military means, but by making the public so damned fed up of being bombed that they would remove Milosovic themselves.

Doesn't seem all that simple and clear to me that you defend this, whilst claiming that it is terrorists, and not military, who target civilians.

We shouldnt let respect for others culture blind us to the wrongs that may be institutionalised in that culture.

Wrongs? What wrongs? You mean "the things that our culture says are wrong about their culture"??? What gives us the right to say that these are wrong because we disagree with them, but which does not give the same right to those other cultures :

"They take culturally-acceptable (to them) action against other cultures that they disagree with. THey are monsters and barbarians and must be stopped by any means possible. We take culturally-acceptable (to us) action against them. We are heroes who should be supported and who should be free to use any means possible".

Should you not equally say, Sand, that we should not let anything blind us to the wrongs that are institutionalised in our own culture as well? But that seems to be what it boils down to - you see stomping on "the wrongs" of other cultures as being all-important. I see addressing the wrongs in "our own" (i.e. Western, broadly speaking) culture as more important. Even more important still is ensuring that no new wrongs become endemic in our culture as a result of some people's vehement desire to protect us from those who we can no longer exploit.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
...if other states seem to feel theyre not bound by the UN why should the US?

Given that the US leads by example, I would prefer the US to be preaching a message of inclusion and co-operation, rather than taking the stance of "well, if you guys won't play fair, neither should we have to, but while its despicable for you to ignore/break the rules, it is only reasonable that we do the same".

Granted the US invented the UN, and indeed its predecessor the League of Nations but both have failed....perhaps the US is simply recognising the facts?

Then let them come out and state clearly that they believe the UN has failed. It has been pointed out several times on various discussions here that the US does not break treaties - it withdraws from them. If that is the case, and the US considers the UN to be a lost cause, then it should signal such by withdrawing.

jc

Sand

Thats funny, cause when I mentioned that the US deliberately targetted civilians in Yugoslavia recently, you posted back implying that you didn't want to go into another discussion of explaining why that wasn't terrorism.

I didnt want to get into another boring terrorist/freedom fighter debate ( see that Israel attacking syrian terrorist camp for example - same points are raised and discredited every single time, Im just waiting for the "What if the UK bombed Ireland cos of the IRA " tripe to surface again ), and I still dont. I offered my opinion of Vaders definition and gave him an example of an objective definition.

And I did respond to your view that the bombings of yugoslavia were terrorism - they didnt deliberately target civillians so I dont view them as terrorist attacks but attacks against valid milatary/economic targets. If the intention was to demonstrate to the Yugoslavs that their leadership had led them into another war they were losing badly then obviously thats the aim of almost every war. "Shock and awe" was just a shorthand way of saying "We want to demonstrate our utter milatary superiority so the enemy realises resistance is pointless and surrenders quickly". Or was it shorthand for "We want to drink the blood of their babies and use their skulls as hood ornaments". Guess it depends on what newsource you read.

Wrongs? What wrongs? You mean "the things that our culture says are wrong about their culture"??? What gives us the right to say that these are wrong because we disagree with them, but which does not give the same right to those other cultures :

Im sorry, I hold that everyone should be equal regardless of gender, race or creed. Now some cultures do not - arabic cultures for *example* tend to be less tolerant of womens rights than ours. Are we then evil and wrong to say "Thats wrong, women should have equal rights regardless of the culture theyre in". Are we wrong to say that its not okay to mutilate children because its part of their culture? Are we wrong to say that stoning someone to death is cruel and unusual punishment even if it is part of their culture and laws? For example if I was to go into a field and cut and wound a bull slowly over a long period of time until eventually killing the bull for my enjoyment youd no doubt - rightly - consider me a heartless monster. However in Spain/southern France youd just consider it part of the culture and feel you couldnt possibly say anything or do anything about it? Yes?

How do you reconcile your belief in the various declarations of human rights with your belief that cultural beliefs are utterly correct and to attempt to reform them or encourage change means youre more of a cultural chuavinist than a person who belies that there should be a bottom line of human rights regardless of their culture?

Theres a lot to be said for respecting other cultures. Theres not much positive that can be said for using culture as an exscuse to forget what you believe is right or wrong.

Should you not equally say, Sand, that we should not let anything blind us to the wrongs that are institutionalised in our own culture as well? But that seems to be what it boils down to - you see stomping on "the wrongs" of other cultures as being all-important. I see addressing the wrongs in "our own" (i.e. Western, broadly speaking) culture as more important. Even more important still is ensuring that no new wrongs become endemic in our culture as a result of some people's vehement desire to protect us from those who we can no longer exploit.

I refer you to Corinthian noting our less than perfect division of church and state throughout history and even recent times - Id have hoped my reply would have indicated that I dont view our culture as in any way perfect or complete. Weve a lot of problems throughout Irish and western culture. Just because we should be concerned that other peoples enjoy basic human rights does not mean we should stop examining ourselves either.

Given that the US leads by example, I would prefer the US to be preaching a message of inclusion and co-operation, rather than taking the stance of "well, if you guys won't play fair, neither should we have to, but while its despicable for you to ignore/break the rules, it is only reasonable that we do the same".

I see it as the only practical course of action the US can take. Its not like anyone views it as a moral authority anyway. Why should they pretend to be one, an act most would find unconvincing - and do even here and now.

Then let them come out and state clearly that they believe the UN has failed. It has been pointed out several times on various discussions here that the US does not break treaties - it withdraws from them. If that is the case, and the US considers the UN to be a lost cause, then it should signal such by withdrawing.

When did unbridled idealism become such a big part of politics? Neocons would enjoy leaving the UN no doubt, but how would that play to the American public who were at best uncertain about going it alone, and how would the the Israeli lobby in the US exercise the veto to protect Israel from UN resolutions? Best course of action from their point of view is to retain at lest a nominal prescence there and use its veto now and again to prevent anything nasty happening to it or its allies - like every other permament Security Council member.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
As you noted yourself most modern democracies contain checks and balances to protect democracy from itself - the Nazis were the largest party in Germany, democratically elected, Haider was democratically elected but was viewed as a threat to European democracy regardless, and there are laws in germany that prevent any party with less than 5% of the national vote to take their seats in the reichstag afaik.

Let’s not confuse the acceptance of such checks and balances with the deception of the citizenry. Laws denying the right to express views that may incite violence have been debated and maintained by the citizens of democracies with transparency. Deception such as the burning of the aforementioned Reichstag and then pointing the finger at an opposition group is another matter alltoger.

What you are defending is neither a check nor balance but a coup d’etat.

Democracy without liberal values is not inherently better than dictatorships, ethnic minorities did better in Titos Yugoslavia than they did in the democratic Yugoslavia riven by ethnic hatreds - Japanese-Americans learned this when they were interned, as did African Americans for a long time after they were "free".

Simply because a majority ( and I allow that to prevent pointless debate as there was never any serious barometer of public opinion taken that didnt sway with the last opinion piece ) didnt support a war to liberate Iraq does not make the liberation of Iraq any less just, as wholly reprehensible decisions have been reached democratically and often governments have had to be more progressive than their citizens

I certainly would not disagree with your scepticism of (liberal) democracy. I’ve stated before, IMHO, that it is in many ways fundamentally flawed. However, not unlike the common argument on capitalism, it is also the least flawed of all the systems presently out there.

Consider for a moment what you’re advocating; that an enlightened oligarchy should act against the wishes if the mob for the good of that same mob (using deceptions to achieve its ends). However, you assume that this oligarchy is indeed enlightened, and not corrupt, deficient or insane. For all its ills, (liberal) democracy is still the best political system for keeping its leaders accountable. There is no mechanism for accountability in what you’re advocating.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

didnt some US colleges have to be opened to African Americans using milatary force, when a majority would have no doubt disaproved?

Actually, AFAIR, the majority approved by democratic national majority. Force was applied to execute this mandate.

Certainly possible - I dont imagine the likes of Bush crying himself to sleep at night for the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam, but neither does the oil explanation hold up to examination as far as I can see

As far as you can see - And if you yourself admit that in the event that you accept deception and the possibility that you do not know the true reason for such action, how can you be so certain that ‘as far as you can see’ is very far at all?

The latest explanation is actually credible - helping out Israel, but how does it help Israel to have major conflicts breaking out in their backyard, especially when there were reasonable fears Saddam might chuck a few more missles at Israel in the meantime or that given the opposition of many arab states that a larger war might break out. Sure Saddam gave cash to the families of palestinian terrorists, but it doesnt seem worth all the risk for that.

Not for the US, but it really depends on the ultimate national allegiance of the Neocons, doesn’t it?