My Challenge to the Euro Left - Show Me
So I'm commenting over at Harry's Place about the Euro Left attitude towards America and the Bush election. I have a point or two to make:
I'm against war.
I'm against shooting little girls holding dolls in the back of the head.
Sometimes the former is required to eliminate the latter.
In my youth we leftists were against fascists and brutal dictators (with or without WMDs).
So this liberal voted for Bush because he promised the overthrow of more dictators. And between you me and Bush - I don't care what excuse he uses.
For the time being liberals like me are the difference between victory and defeat for Bush.
So here is what I propose. Let me see the results of the anti-war left in 2 years. If even one country is even imperfectly on its way to democracy and prosperity at that time (no worse than Iraq today)due to the efforts of the Euro Left I will agitate in America and get many of my friends as well to give the Republicans a resounding defeat in the mid-term elections.
BTW I favor gay marriage, an end to drug prohibition, the legalization of prostitution,easy availability of abortion, etc. I'm quite a liberal on social issues. Yet I voted Bush. Did I mention I'm a Dead Head since '66?
And yes I do take my responsibility towards the rest of the world seriously.
I do respond to results.
Show me some.
Posts
4 comments:
I don't have any examples, but I do have a question. What is the exact definition of a dictator or fascist? Is this a definition that everyone can agree with?
Meanwhile, I found an interesting website about Peaceful Change Strategies. I had never thought about all the possible mechanisms involved in effecting a peaceful change. It is also interesting to note Ghandi's and MLK's desires to not view adversaries as enemies. This can be hard to imagine, given the hardships and violence the adversaries focused against the Indians and Black America. Yet these two leaders believed that change could only be achieved if both sides are involved. And nobody wants to be involved in change if the other side regards it as the enemy (there's a lesson for both political parties here, eh?)
I like the idea of not being the enemy.
Have you explained this to Osama? Let me know as soon as he gets back to you.
I'm sad to say that there are some struggles that can only end in death. Look what reasoning got you with the Nazis. Or should we put that aside and look at why Japan needed Manchuria more than the Chinese.
Well any way. I'm all for making deals and splitting differences. With people who keep their promises and have some sense of reciprocity.
MLK and Ghandi knew the levers to use to move English/American culture. Evidently similar tactics or even total retreat were not so successful with 30s - '40s Germany.
Know your enemy. Or your opponent - as the case may be. We can use a simple rule of thumb. If they don't like the Jews they are most likely bad guys.
Hmmmmm.
Why is Osama the name that you bring up? I thought you were focused on dictators. Osama bin Laden does not rule any country. But to try to answer on that term, were there ever any attempts to negotiate with al-Qaeda, either before or after 9/11? I honestly don't know, but I would like to think that we value peace over vengeance enough to look for such solutions over a seemingly endless war against an ill-defined enemy. If anything, negotiations can help to define the adversary such that any necessary violent actions latter would be more effective both militarily and politically.
As to the examples of Nazi Germany and the Japanese in Manchuria, I note that the Allies were careful to treat the defeated foes respectfully, not as entrenched enemies. That was the mistake of WW I's end, that Germany was treated as an enemy to be continuously squashed. This led to the rise of fascism in Germany. As for negotiations before WWII, I don't know enough about the politics. Can you help me?
I bring up Osama as an example of some one with whom reason is impossible.
Your ignorance of WW2 history is one of the reasons you believe that negotiated settlement is possible in all cases. The record is vast and needs comprehensive study. I will give you a hint. Study the events leading up to and subsequent to the Munich agreement of 1938.
Now take Saddam. Post war (1991) he made agreements with the United Nations and its forces that he never kept. He was firing on UN forces post war for 12 years. There is an example of a man who didn't keep his promises. A man not to be trusted. Then we have the North Koreans. Then we have the so called "Palestinians". Then there are the North Vietnamese and their peace agreement with tthe South.
Without a deep understanding and study of history you are prone to fall for any propaganda you meet from the so called progressives.
Ghandi and MLK were effective with their tactics because their opponents were honorable people. The same methods against the Nazis were not effective.
Ghandi is not a panacea. Had such tactics been used against Saddam every one involved would have been killed.
As to which dictator and which country you wish to demonstrate the superiority of your tactics - I'm easy. You choose. How about occupied Lebanon. Or even Syria. Iran would be very good. But you pick. I'm sure we can reach agreement. :-)
Post a Comment