the dynamite politics thread
- Thread starter Malaclypse
- Start date
Humanure
Speaking in Killing Words
Cold War politics. Do i agree with it? No, but that's in hindsight. I'm sure at the time it seemed only marginally ludicrous...Northern Lights said:
My point is if you want to rag on US or world politics rag on the decisions that have been made after the fall of the USSR. There was a completely different set of rules then.
Today a colleague of mine stated a very intelligent point. A group of people were discussing the abuses of the US in the world, and he said: when one country is so heavily dominant, it will unavoidably exercise its rule, not a commonly agreed rule, because it has no real incentive to subject itself to others' intentions. Seeing how European states behaved when they were in that position, the US are being pretty fair. He also stated that he doesn't expect the next world superpower, i.e. China, to uphold the standards (although some believe them to be low) of international conduct that are being upheld by America now.
I don't agree on every word of his theory, but I reckon he had a very articulate and mature approach.
I don't agree on every word of his theory, but I reckon he had a very articulate and mature approach.
@Humanure: Yeah sure, but decisions made in the past obviously affect the decisions made today. For example, would an invasion of Iraq really have been necessary if Saddam hadn't been running the country? And would Saddam have been running the country if the US hadn't helped him?
"Our deeds still travel with us from afar, and what we have been makes us what we are" to use a random quote
@hyena: I think that theory sounds fairly sensible, yeah...
"Our deeds still travel with us from afar, and what we have been makes us what we are" to use a random quote
@hyena: I think that theory sounds fairly sensible, yeah...
@NL: I'm not really sure about the deeds travelling from afar theory. I mean - I understand in politics, but I can't see it happening in personal life. And politics, like any other activity, should be based in interpersonal relationships, as far as I understand. It's just weird. A bit creepy, too.
@hyena: let me go and study international relations and politics at university as I intend to, and maybe then I'll be able to offer a good explanation to how I'm thinking...
nah, seriously; the way I see it it can happen in your personal life too; the way you interact with people determine what kind of future relationship you will have with them - betray them from the start and they won't trust you, hurt them and they will fear you, etc. And if your parents tell you from an early age that another family has wronged them in the past, way before you were born, you will grow up eyeing the other family rather suspiciously.
Pretty much everything you've done in the past will affect your life today, and it's my belief that the same goes for politics in general. Having had bad experiences of dealing with a country in the past might cause another country to think twice before dealing with it again. And supporting someone who's only in it for the power, is a decision that could very well turn on you if you ever do anything that does not please the powerhungry... regardless of how well you got on before that.
It's just what I've always thought about these things...
nah, seriously; the way I see it it can happen in your personal life too; the way you interact with people determine what kind of future relationship you will have with them - betray them from the start and they won't trust you, hurt them and they will fear you, etc. And if your parents tell you from an early age that another family has wronged them in the past, way before you were born, you will grow up eyeing the other family rather suspiciously.
Pretty much everything you've done in the past will affect your life today, and it's my belief that the same goes for politics in general. Having had bad experiences of dealing with a country in the past might cause another country to think twice before dealing with it again. And supporting someone who's only in it for the power, is a decision that could very well turn on you if you ever do anything that does not please the powerhungry... regardless of how well you got on before that.
It's just what I've always thought about these things...
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
and.. and.. when you were stupid enough to swim with the sharks in your trip to Australia 10 years ago, because you thought they were distant cousins of dolphins, and lost both of your legs.. well, it kind of affects your decision today (at dinner time) on how you're going to grab that jar of apple sauce high up in the pantry..
:q
:q
@MagSec: yeah, it's a bitch, isn't it? but please enlighten us, oh wise one; how did you solve it?
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
Check this out and see if you still think highly of american:
http://brasil.indymedia.org/media/iraqiwar.avi
I kinda felt like beating the shit out of the snot-nose in
this video. Fucking moron.
You need DivX codec installed for it.
http://brasil.indymedia.org/media/iraqiwar.avi
I kinda felt like beating the shit out of the snot-nose in
this video. Fucking moron.
You need DivX codec installed for it.
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
Noam Chomsky said:
I think this should shut up anyone who doesn't think USA is a terrorist
nation, even their own documents classify them as such.
Those of you with eDonkey/eMule/Overnet wanting more Chomsky stuff,
go here.
Those without go here.
This message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood assassin
MagSec4
.:..::.: :.::..:.
this article pretty much sums up my opinion about the recent tragic events:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16BROO.html
(i'm not american, but i also understand that what he's saying about americans' reactions to european attitudes are perfectly reasonable).
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16BROO.html
(i'm not american, but i also understand that what he's saying about americans' reactions to european attitudes are perfectly reasonable).
rahvin
keeper of the flame
@hyena: i think the link won't work unless you're registered. you can copy/paste it here, though.
Lina
kickass elizabethan style
worked for me, and i'm in the process of responding...
edit:
edit:
Does anyone here know what pollsters were predicting the outcome of the election would be before the attack took place? I would've assumed that Spaniards already disapproved of their government's involvement in Iraq, just as a majority of Brits do. Brooks doesn't offer any evidence that the Madrid attack was the catalyst for the public's disapproval.
If that's the case, how do we go about fighting a "war" with them? It's a neverending, unwinnable proposition. I'm not saying we should cease and desist, I'm just annoyed how conservatives think we can simply kill them all "one by one," problem solved.
"Most aggressively antiterror party" being, in his eyes, the Republicans (which is ludicrous). I'd argue instead that the American public would rally behind the president, whichever party he is from, and only out of blind patriotism. I'm not sure that's any more praise-worthy than a knee-jerk response against the status quo.
Prodi's observation is absolutely correct. It is Brooks who assumes that is an endorsement for "capitulation and negotiation." Again, more defensiveness on the part of conservatives, rather than have an intellectual policy debate. (And maybe there's nothing to debate, maybe the situation is just that impossible, but come on, enough with the macho "charging full-steam ahead" attitude.)
Uh, maybe because the president proudly and purposefully puts forth that impression?!
registration on the nyt is free and also a blissful thing to do. i'm going to paste the article in its entirety here anyway.
Al Qaeda's Wish List
[size=-1]By DAVID BROOKS[/size]
Published: March 16, 2004
I am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened: The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.
What is the Spanish word for appeasement?
There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.
We can be pretty sure now that this will not be the last of the election-eve massacres. Al Qaeda will regard Spain as a splendid triumph. After all, how often have murderers altered a democratic election? And having done it once, why stop now? Why should they not now massacre Italians, Poles, Americans and Brits?
Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people. Yesterday the incoming Spanish prime minister indicated he would pull his troops out of Iraq unless the U.N. takes control. The terrorists sought this because they understand, even if many in Europe do not, that Iraq is a crucial battleground in the war on terror. They understand what a deadly threat the new democratic constitution is to their cause. As Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wrote in his famous memo, where there is democracy, there is no pretext for murder. Where there is liberty, there is no chance for totalitarian theocracy.
Perhaps Al Qaeda will win new recruits as a result of this triumph. But even if it does destroy Afghanistan and Iraq, it still will not stop. Retreating nations like Spain will still not be safe. For Al Qaeda's mission is not about one country or another. It is existential. "You love life and we love death," the purported terrorists said in the videotape found in Madrid.
There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election. The rift between the U.S. and Europe will grow wider. Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters.
Many Americans and many Europeans will stare at each other in the weeks ahead with disbelieving eyes. For today more than any other, it really does appear that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.
If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?
Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?
This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
Al Qaeda's Wish List
[size=-1]By DAVID BROOKS[/size]
Published: March 16, 2004
I am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened: The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.
What is the Spanish word for appeasement?
There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.
We can be pretty sure now that this will not be the last of the election-eve massacres. Al Qaeda will regard Spain as a splendid triumph. After all, how often have murderers altered a democratic election? And having done it once, why stop now? Why should they not now massacre Italians, Poles, Americans and Brits?
Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people. Yesterday the incoming Spanish prime minister indicated he would pull his troops out of Iraq unless the U.N. takes control. The terrorists sought this because they understand, even if many in Europe do not, that Iraq is a crucial battleground in the war on terror. They understand what a deadly threat the new democratic constitution is to their cause. As Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wrote in his famous memo, where there is democracy, there is no pretext for murder. Where there is liberty, there is no chance for totalitarian theocracy.
Perhaps Al Qaeda will win new recruits as a result of this triumph. But even if it does destroy Afghanistan and Iraq, it still will not stop. Retreating nations like Spain will still not be safe. For Al Qaeda's mission is not about one country or another. It is existential. "You love life and we love death," the purported terrorists said in the videotape found in Madrid.
There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election. The rift between the U.S. and Europe will grow wider. Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters.
Many Americans and many Europeans will stare at each other in the weeks ahead with disbelieving eyes. For today more than any other, it really does appear that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.
If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?
Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?
This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
Similar threads
