More Maoists Than Monarchists
Nepal is on course to give their formerly revolutionary Maoist Party a considerable majority in their first elections after the end of their absolute monarchy. This causes some problems for everyone in the west since America still has them officially listed as terrorists and the Gurkas might be dissolved as a military force in service of Britain. Nepalese conservatives were doubtless dismayed as well, given that the top of the policy agenda is now the destruction of the monarchy.
Their leader has stated quite clearly that he intends to evade autocracy and use multi-party politics, which calls into question exactly how Maoist they really are but is certainly welcome. It is expected that they shall want a powerful presidential executive, however, so I remain wary.
Still, as outcomes go it is certainly amongst the best that could have been hoped for. The abandonment of military means has clearly benefitted the former army and they could have caused major problems had they refused to participate. As it is Nepal stands a strong chance of progress, just so long as their governance is as competant as it is radical.
Just to state the obvious, Mao was responsible for the deaths of 80 million people. I really can’t see how anyone could endorse a party inspired by such a brutal dictator, especially when they were standing against a centrist social democratic party (the Nepali Congress). Of course it’s brilliant that Nepal is going down the democratic route but any pretensions to democracy seem fragile when the party on the brink of victory admitted they would use force if they failed to win!
Maoism is an anti-democratic ideology. It is terribly sad that such a failed ideology will have another outpost. Gerard Baker was right when he claimed last week in The Times that the inevitability of democracy’s victory looks more precarious than anytime since the Cold War.
Just to state the obvious, Mao was responsible for the deaths of 80 million people.
Yesssss…About that.
I’m not about to play apologist for a tyrant, really I’m not, but consider that the members of that party are unlikely to think that to be true. They see him as an efficient administrator, no doubt. So long as they don’t try and pull their own Great Leap Forward then it should all be all right. Hopefully.
I’m just saying that it’s not a bunch of people who think that 80 million people {more than the population of Nepal} starving to death is a wonderful thing and will do their best to match that figure however they can.
I really can’t see how anyone could endorse a party inspired by such a brutal dictator, especially when they were standing against a centrist social democratic party
And another Communist party, of course.
(the Nepali Congress).
Who obviously were too moderate to appeal to the Nepalese. They clearly want a major shift from their shoddy past and the status quo tainted politicians are not the one’s to deliver it. Unless you’ve lived under an absolutist monarch lately I wouldn’t judge. They got who they wished and if it crashes…Well, with any luck they can go back to the NepCong and see how that goes. Who knows though, we might get surprised. It might all work out. That really would be something.
Of course it’s brilliant that Nepal is going down the democratic route but any pretensions to democracy seem fragile when the party on the brink of victory admitted they would use force if they failed to win!
I actually hadn’t heard that. If you had a source I’d be much obliged to see it.
Maoism is an anti-democratic ideology.
Well their leader doesn’t seem to think so. Seems quite committed to the whole affair. And that is all that really matters, unless he’s lying. And we’ll see about that. Until then it’s good not to presume, ideologies tend to have shifting manifestations.
It is terribly sad that such a failed ideology will have another outpost.
So it’s brilliant that they have a democracy and of course you have a stirling support for democracy {so long as the dreaded LibDems don’t get representation relative to their actual support, of course} but terribly sad that they opted for somebody who you dislike. Hrm…
Yeah, alright. I can take that. I just find it curious that you love Blair, who cosied up to someone who actually stole an election, along with a fistfull of autocrats who were even worse {and who he even covered up the dirty work of in a most injust fashion by terminating prematurely an official investigation} but seem so wary of some people having elections and voting in communists by a hefty margin who then pledge that they’ll engage in multi-party politics and not crush anyone. So electorally thieving right-wingers who kill well over a million civilians {ref:The Lancet} are ok and seeing the Dear Leader give them a cuddle doesn’t smear him with blood; but if some asians decide that it’s time for some radical leftists to take over and clean up the wreckage of absolutist monarchy then you start to panic.
I like to think that the Nepalese know what’s good for them. How about you?
Gerard Baker was right when he claimed last week in The Times that the inevitability of democracy’s victory looks more precarious than anytime since the Cold War.
Gerard Baker is never right about anything.
“Yesssss…About that.
I’m not about to play apologist for a tyrant, really I’m not, but consider that the members of that party are unlikely to think that to be true. They see him as an efficient administrator, no doubt. So long as they don’t try and pull their own Great Leap Forward then it should all be all right. Hopefully.
I’m just saying that it’s not a bunch of people who think that 80 million people {more than the population of Nepal} starving to death is a wonderful thing and will do their best to match that figure however they can.”
No party members are going to think their leader is a tyrant, so I can’t see how that works as an argument.
Well no, because Mao’s “efficient administration” was totalitarianism. His “efficient administration” was what caused the state-induced starvation of the Great Leap Forward. Hitler built excellent roads, so I hear. Even if they didn’t want to try it out for themselves, the fact they claim inspiration from one of the greatest criminals in human history should be enough to make their ideology completely reprehensible.
“I actually hadn’t heard that. If you had a source I’d be much obliged to see it.”
In April 2008 the United Nations Mission in Nepal urged the Maoist party to stop intimidating officials of other parties in the run-up of the general elections, taking place in April 10, 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7159258.stm).
Also, they strongly believe in the philosophy of Mao Zedong that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” and that both military power must be subordinate to political leadership. (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/nepal/terroristoutfits/index.html)
“Well their leader doesn’t seem to think so. Seems quite committed to the whole affair. And that is all that really matters, unless he’s lying. And we’ll see about that. Until then it’s good not to presume, ideologies tend to have shifting manifestations.”
Liberal democracy and Maoism are mutually exclusive concepts. It is an ideology based on the thoughts of one dictator, the most important of all he declared to be “It’s right to rebel against reactionaries”. Mao believed that democracy was a bourgeois fraud and with the Cultural Revolution, was responsible for one of the greatest assaults on freedom in the twentieth century. Maoism, like Stalinism, is an ideology which sanctifies the actions of one man. Unlike recent waves of communism, like the Eurocommunism of the 60s-80s, there are no Maoist democrats. But we will wait and see.
“So it’s brilliant that they have a democracy and of course you have a stirling support for democracy {so long as the dreaded LibDems don’t get representation relative to their actual support, of course} but terribly sad that they opted for somebody who you dislike. Hrm…”
That really is pathetic. Comparing misgivings about PR (I support some form electoral reform) with being opposed to democracy! But yes, the rest of what you said is right: it’s good they’re now democratic, sad they’ve got a bunch of Maoist thugs which will mean it probably won’t last long. I can’t see what’s so difficult to understand about that.
“Yeah, alright. I can take that. I just find it curious that you love Blair, who cosied up to someone who actually stole an election, along with a fistfull of autocrats who were even worse {and who he even covered up the dirty work of in a most injust fashion by terminating prematurely an official investigation} but seem so wary of some people having elections and voting in communists by a hefty margin who then pledge that they’ll engage in multi-party politics and not crush anyone.”
There is a distinction between being saddened by the result of a free and fair election – as you were with Berlusconi – and believing that party should not be allowed to stand. To clarify, it’s awful the Maoists are now in power but until they actually attack the democratic institutions of Nepal, I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t have a right to that power.
I do hope you’re not suggesting Nepal is a better democracy than America…
“So electorally thieving right-wingers who kill well over a million civilians {ref:The Lancet} are ok”
That’s complete crap. The Lancet estimated in its most recent report that 650,000 Iraqis had died since 2003. The British did not kill them; the Americans did not kill them. They were murdered by Iranian-backed Shia insurgents people like Muqtada al-Sadr, by groups connected with al’Qaeda, people like al-Zarqawi and by former Ba’athists. All these terrorist organisations and right-wing on any model. Far from a bit of a mess up in Florida, they kill countrymen who try to vote. They murder charity workers, bomb the UN and strap bombs to teenage girls with mental illnesses.
In the most excessive use of American power, the Battle of Fallujah, 300 unarmed Iraqis died. Whilst this was obviously a tragedy, it was unintentional, unlike the insurgent groups and it was the greatest numbers of civilians killed by the Coalition forces in any episode of the war.
“and seeing the Dear Leader give them a cuddle doesn’t smear him with blood; but if some asians decide that it’s time for some radical leftists to take over and clean up the wreckage of absolutist monarchy then you start to panic.
I like to think that the Nepalese know what’s good for them. How about you?”
I start to panic because I can’t really think of any regime in which radical leftism has worked, especially through democratic means. As I’ve already said, the Maoists will have a right to remain in power, however awful they are, if they abide by the democratic process.
I’ve already made clear I don’t think Maoism is good for anyone.
“Gerard Baker is never right about anything.”
Nice to see you’ve got an open mind. If it helps, David Miliband, Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm have all said much the same thing.
No party members are going to think their leader is a tyrant, so I can’t see how that works as an argument.
A fantastic missing of my point. Which was that the deaths caused were not a consequence of inherent Maoist tendency to kill, as was true of National Socialism. It is apparent to anyone who reads Mein Kamph that Hitler has it in for the Jews, or for Stalinism, as it is apparent that anyone who reads the formal rants of that tyrant on the “Kulaks” knows that he intends to destroy whoever they are. It is not hard-wired into Mao’s philosophy in quite the same way that there needs to be mass-scale death. Both Hitler and Stalin performed intentional acts of execution, the latter using class and the former race, whereas Mao killed massive amounts of peasants due to the idiocy of his administrative system and the crucially flawed state of China’s massive bureaucracy.
It was an accident and a mistake. The cause was incompetence rather than malignity. Furthermore there are those that dispute the claims made against Mao, such as the following gentleman:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200501010011
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8KKpAJlw4CUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gao+village&sig=kd07b7zySoK-eEvU13qloyOGF1w
http://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/nplutobrows.pl?chkisbn=9780745327808&main=&second=&third=&foo=../ssi/ssfooter.ssi
Do I buy it? No. But the Maoists most likely do otherwise they wouldn’t have chosen him as their hero. And it’s them that have come to power, not Mao. My point is that the reality of Mao’s reign is an irrelevance in that they are not in fact lead by him but simply use him as an inspiration. Something I doubt they’d do if they saw him as a killer of 80 million by accident.
Well no, because Mao’s “efficient administration” was totalitarianism. His “efficient administration” was what caused the state-induced starvation of the Great Leap Forward. Hitler built excellent roads, so I hear. Even if they didn’t want to try it out for themselves, the fact they claim inspiration from one of the greatest criminals in human history should be enough to make their ideology completely reprehensible.
Seems like you beat me to it with Godwin’s Law.
In April 2008 the United Nations Mission in Nepal urged the Maoist party to stop intimidating officials of other parties in the run-up of the general elections, taking place in April 10, 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7159258.stm).
Also, they strongly believe in the philosophy of Mao Zedong that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” and that both military power must be subordinate to political leadership. (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/nepal/terroristoutfits/index.html)
Well as far as I am aware their current position is in favour of multi-party politics. Until they act otherwise that holds. They decided to depend upon popular support instead of violence and it paid off. Where is the problem here?
Liberal democracy and Maoism are mutually exclusive concepts. It is an ideology based on the thoughts of one dictator, the most important of all he declared to be “It’s right to rebel against reactionaries”. Mao believed that democracy was a bourgeois fraud and with the Cultural Revolution, was responsible for one of the greatest assaults on freedom in the twentieth century. Maoism, like Stalinism, is an ideology which sanctifies the actions of one man. Unlike recent waves of communism, like the Eurocommunism of the 60s-80s, there are no Maoist democrats. But we will wait and see.
Well clearly they have diluted their allegiance to this. Otherwise they would not have stood. Much like the supposed “Marxist-Leninists” who claimed the presidency in Cyprus.
That really is pathetic. Comparing misgivings about PR (I support some form electoral reform) with being opposed to democracy!
Well that’s sort of what it is. The people don’t want Labour in power and you think that that doesn’t matter and they should be anyway. I’m opposed to total democracy as well, mind you. I just think it’s better to be open with such things and avoid spin. It’s not pathetic, just earnest.
But yes, the rest of what you said is right: it’s good they’re now democratic, sad they’ve got a bunch of Maoist thugs which will mean it probably won’t last long. I can’t see what’s so difficult to understand about that.
I don’t know, we’ll see. I just think that their very involvement demonstrates a shift in ideology.
There is a distinction between being saddened by the result of a free and fair election – as you were with Berlusconi –
I’d say more enraged, there. No doubt the Italians want him and thus they deserve him. But the notion of the corrupt criminal returning to power is rather loathsome. I assure you that if Mao returned to life and power I would be even more agitated.
In this instance the Nepalese Maoists have never been in power before. We have no means of judging how they will respond, whereas with Berlusconi we can judge from previous conduct.
and believing that party should not be allowed to stand. To clarify, it’s awful the Maoists are now in power but until they actually attack the democratic institutions of Nepal, I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t have a right to that power.
Splendid.
I do hope you’re not suggesting Nepal is a better democracy than America…
Yes, it is. 2000 election results, Florida. Enough said.
That’s complete crap.
The pro-war left was lecturing the anti about “Responsibility” and so on before this entire mess tore open. If you stand idle then you are responsible for the acts of the tyrants. Those who launched the invasion, therefore, are equally responsible for the carnage that ensued.
The Lancet estimated in its most recent report that 650,000 Iraqis had died since 2003.
Are we including starvation, dehydration, additional deaths due to mangled healthcare infrastructure and so on here? Because we really should.
The British did not kill them; the Americans did not kill them. They were murdered by Iranian-backed Shia insurgents people like Muqtada al-Sadr, by groups connected with al’Qaeda, people like al-Zarqawi and by former Ba’athists. All these terrorist organisations and right-wing on any model.
All of which were kept under control and in check by Saddam. A pity that it took him, I know, but unquestionably the case.
Far from a bit of a mess up in Florida,
Yay, a spot of healthy apologism!
they kill countrymen who try to vote. They murder charity workers, bomb the UN and strap bombs to teenage girls with mental illnesses.
All of which rather rebuffs the notion that the invasion brought peace and liberty to that nation, no?
In the most excessive use of American power, the Battle of Fallujah, 300 unarmed Iraqis died. Whilst this was obviously a tragedy, it was unintentional, unlike the insurgent groups and it was the greatest numbers of civilians killed by the Coalition forces in any episode of the war.
A…Tragedy? Try atrocity. They used white phosphorous on a population of civilians that they had refused to let leave the city. They used age and gender as a criteria for who could and could not depart and then stormed the place using toxic weaponry. I refused to act as an apologist for Mao and you are currently not returning the favour. Try and recognise a war crime when you see one.
You can not block exit from a city and then bombard it with chemical weaponry and claim that the deaths which ensued were unintentional. No more than the Nazis that emailed Daniel Finkelstein could claim that Anne Frank’s blood was not on SS hands since she died of typhoid rather than Zyklon B. If you bombard an area filled with civilians with indiscriminate weaponry civilians die. In this case civilians die horribly with their flesh being scorched from the bone. The US military knew this and that was what they did.
If you think that that kind of thing is fine then say so. They are tarnished forever in my eyes.
I start to panic because I can’t really think of any regime in which radical leftism has worked, especially through democratic means. As I’ve already said, the Maoists will have a right to remain in power, however awful they are, if they abide by the democratic process.
Splendid.
I’ve already made clear I don’t think Maoism is good for anyone.
I’ve already made clear I don’t think that this is Maoism. Or at least not as we know it.
Nice to see you’ve got an open mind.
No, really, I’ve tried. I’ve given him every opportunity possible, attempted to understand his perspective and given a go to turning a blind eye over his assumption that America is packed full of right-wingers instead of deeply and chronically divided, ignored his skinheaded jingoism and apologism for use of white phosphorous on civilians {even worse than your own, since he tried to make light of it instead of pretending it was some massive accident}.
But when he called Barack Obama a “Dangerous left-winger” that was the last straw. The man’s perspective is so warped he is beyond redemption.
If it helps, David Miliband, Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm have all said much the same thing.
Well for a trio of pro-war leftists that’s pretty damn odd. Wasn’t the idea behind Iraq that it promote democracy? It seems that it was a failure on just about every count, then. Right?
“A fantastic missing of my point. Which was that the deaths caused were not a consequence of inherent Maoist tendency to kill, as was true of National Socialism. It is apparent to anyone who reads Mein Kamph that Hitler has it in for the Jews, or for Stalinism, as it is apparent that anyone who reads the formal rants of that tyrant on the “Kulaks” knows that he intends to destroy whoever they are. It is not hard-wired into Mao’s philosophy in quite the same way that there needs to be mass-scale death. Both Hitler and Stalin performed intentional acts of execution, the latter using class and the former race, whereas Mao killed massive amounts of peasants due to the idiocy of his administrative system and the crucially flawed state of China’s massive bureaucracy.
It was an accident and a mistake. The cause was incompetence rather than malignity.”
I wouldn’t like to be pedantic but the Holocaust wasn’t decided upon as policy until 1940/41. Most historians consider Hitler did not have a strategy for Germany in 1933, but that it evolved over time. Of course he hated the Jews, just as Stalin and Mao hated the bourgeoisie and “counter-revolutionaries”. Mao’s campaign against counter-revolutionaries in the Cultural Revolution was just as bad as Stalin’s Great Purge. I really can’t see how that wasn’t about intentional execution.
Mao killed millions of peasants in his Great Leap Forward out of a complete contempt for human life – it wasn’t bad organisation. He declared he’d be happy if 150m died if it helped China progress. It was state-induced with grain requisitioned from starving peasants to fund a nuclear programme.
“Do I buy it? No. But the Maoists most likely do otherwise they wouldn’t have chosen him as their hero. And it’s them that have come to power, not Mao. My point is that the reality of Mao’s reign is an irrelevance in that they are not in fact lead by him but simply use him as an inspiration. Something I doubt they’d do if they saw him as a killer of 80 million by accident.”
That’s not true. Evidently they believe he, as an individual, was a good thing, or else they’d simply be a different sort of agrarian socialist rather than a Maoist. Maoist will be inspired by his violent writings on revolution and his literature as leader as well as what he achieved when in charge. To suggest that Maoists aren’t interested in Mao ruled China seems rather odd, to say the least!
“Seems like you beat me to it with Godwin’s Law.”
I’d never heard of Godwin’s Law and have just Googled it. It would seem to cry “Nazi” at George Bush or ID Cards would be reductive and stupid but I can’t really see what’s wrong with comparing one of the few totalitarian regimes with another.
“Well as far as I am aware their current position is in favour of multi-party politics. Until they act otherwise that holds. They decided to depend upon popular support instead of violence and it paid off. Where is the problem here?”
The problem is that very few dictatorships admit to it. The USSR and China both claimed to be socialist democracies. The fact a Maoist organisation say they’ll be good means very little, especially given they were criticised for undemocratic behaviour by the UN earlier in the month…
“Well that’s sort of what it is. The people don’t want Labour in power and you think that that doesn’t matter and they should be anyway. I’m opposed to total democracy as well, mind you. I just think it’s better to be open with such things and avoid spin. It’s not pathetic, just earnest.”
The British electoral system works on the principle on which ever party has a majority of seats can form a government. If Labour could not put together a majority, it should not have the right to power.
“In this instance the Nepalese Maoists have never been in power before. We have no means of judging how they will respond, whereas with Berlusconi we can judge from previous conduct.”
You can judge them on the basis of their ideology and the actions of other followers of that ideology.
“Yes, it is. 2000 election results, Florida. Enough said.”
America is the oldest liberal democracy in the world. It has a proud tradition of spreading freedom and has some of the most advanced democratic institutions in the world, which have served as the model for many new democracies. Unlike Britain, it was founded upon these ideals. In Florida, the Republicans won by only a few hundred votes and the voting system was probably unfair. However, this aberration does little to attract from America’s proud democratic heritage. Nepal was an absolute monarchy until 1990, it has been a federal republic for a few months. Enough said?
“The pro-war left was lecturing the anti about “Responsibility” and so on before this entire mess tore open. If you stand idle then you are responsible for the acts of the tyrants. Those who launched the invasion, therefore, are equally responsible for the carnage that ensued.”
The doctrine was that bad things get worse when powerful democracies do nothing to stop them. This seems perfectly valid. It never suggested John Major was as bad as Milosevic. The Americans and British did not stand idle. They have been fighting the insurgents since 2003. It is perverse that you think the British Army which distributes humanitarian aid and tries to protect civilians is as complicit in their deaths as al’ Qaeda.
“All of which were kept under control and in check by Saddam. A pity that it took him, I know, but unquestionably the case.”
So that’s fine. No need for democracy or basic human rights as long as we have order. Just as long as you don’t rock the boat, or happen to be Kurdish or Shia, nothing to worry about. Surely that’s about reactionary as arguments get?
“All of which rather rebuffs the notion that the invasion brought peace and liberty to that nation, no?”
Who said it brought peace? Iraq is less stable than before the invasion, unquestionably. No one thought it would be peaceful for a while (although it’s a lot more peaceful than if we’d waited and Turkey, Iran, al’Qaeda and the internal opposition had fought a proxy war). We invaded to bring human rights and democracy. This is now the case even if they are under threat from barbarism.
“Well for a trio of pro-war leftists that’s pretty damn odd. Wasn’t the idea behind Iraq that it promote democracy? It seems that it was a failure on just about every count, then. Right?”
They believe, as I do, that the invasion of Iraq spread democracy to that country. They believe that the success of free trade autocracies in China and Russia and to a lesser extent the regional power of Venezuela and Iran offer a new model. Rulers who traditionally couldn’t stand the idea of relinquishing power but recognised it as necessary if their country was to modernise its economy (free trade + democracy) now see they can have one without the other and still be a superpower or be powers without either.
Why is it that you can write two paragraphs on “American war crimes”, comparing the attack on Fallujah to Belsen (guess that’s Godwin’s Law too!) without a single thing on the 600,000 dead as a result of internal terrorism, except that it’s our fault just as much as theirs? Your opposition to the invasion does tread worryingly close to apologism for modern-day fascists.
I wouldn’t like to be pedantic but the Holocaust wasn’t decided upon as policy until 1940/41. Most historians consider Hitler did not have a strategy for Germany in 1933, but that it evolved over time.
You are being pedantic. The virulent Jew-hate within Mein Kamph makes it perfectly clear that Hitler was filled with both loathing and delusion towards them {witness his efforts to explain to us how they control both the capitalists and the Marxists} that any Jews he could not scare off he would kill.
Of course he hated the Jews, just as Stalin and Mao hated the bourgeoisie and “counter-revolutionaries”. Mao’s campaign against counter-revolutionaries in the Cultural Revolution was just as bad as Stalin’s Great Purge. I really can’t see how that wasn’t about intentional execution.
Stalin was attempting to annihilate a class. He made that perfectly clear.
Mao killed millions of peasants in his Great Leap Forward out of a complete contempt for human life – it wasn’t bad organisation.
Incorrect. Much of the cause of famine was misreporting of food totals which went from bottom upwards, meaning that the allocation of food which reached those at the very bottom {almost everyone since China was largely peasants} got nothing as they were attempting to use resources which did not exist. This disastrous bureaucracy meant that they were ignorant of the carnage that they were causing until far too late.
If they were better informed, who knows?
He declared he’d be happy if 150m died if it helped China progress.
In much the same way that John McCain said that he would be happy for US troops to be stationed in Iraq for 10,000 years. That was almost certainly a flight of rhetoric rather than an earnest suggestion.
That’s not true. Evidently they believe he, as an individual, was a good thing, or else they’d simply be a different sort of agrarian socialist rather than a Maoist.
Sorry, what’s not true? That “they believe he, as an individual, was a good thing”? That’s what I was arguing. Please, keep up.
Maoist will be inspired by his violent writings on revolution and his literature as leader as well as what he achieved when in charge.
Well they’ve given up on the militancy stuff. So, to an extent, they’ve abandoned Maoism?
To suggest that Maoists aren’t interested in Mao ruled China seems rather odd, to say the least!
Yes, good thing that I didn’t. I’m done trying to explain the difference between reality and their perception to you, though. Or the implications of that. It’s not worth the effort as we’re clearly not getting anywhere.
I’d never heard of Godwin’s Law and have just Googled it. It would seem to cry “Nazi” at George Bush or ID Cards would be reductive and stupid but I can’t really see what’s wrong with comparing one of the few totalitarian regimes with another.
Just saying.
The problem is that very few dictatorships admit to it. The USSR and China both claimed to be socialist democracies. The fact a Maoist organisation say they’ll be good means very little, especially given they were criticised for undemocratic behaviour by the UN earlier in the month…
As far as I can tell they didn’t need to commit fraud to win this one.
The British electoral system works on the principle on which ever party has a majority of seats can form a government. If Labour could not put together a majority, it should not have the right to power.
Yes, thank you for explaining the parliamentary system to me. What I said was: “The people don’t want Labour in power” which is true “and you think that that doesn’t matter and they should be anyway” which is also true. Most of Britain wants a hefty majority of leftists and liberals and what they get is a Labour overall majority. Therefore what they desire and what they receive are disconnected and you consider that to be the appropriate state of affairs.
You can judge them on the basis of their ideology and the actions of other followers of that ideology.
Ntrly. Most Maoists come to power through armed struggle, making this bunch atypical from the outset.
America is the oldest liberal democracy in the world.
Not for blacks and women it isn’t.
It has a proud tradition of spreading freedom
Along with Agent Orange, nuclear fallout and other sources of massive civilian death. Read “Brought To Light” some time, will you? The CIA more than makes up for any of the good America has done and you don’t need to be a deranged tin-foil hat wearer to accept that.
and has some of the most advanced democratic institutions in the world,
Like the glorious election-thieving Diebold machines!
which have served as the model for many new democracies.
Ho Chi himself read out the Declaration of Independence after liberating Vietnam. How well that went.
Unlike Britain, it was founded upon these ideals.
And just like Britain it had to be heavily ethnically cleansed. Only when we were chasing off the Celts we didn’t give them blankets infected with smallpox, which was an oversight.
In Florida, the Republicans won by only a few hundred votes and the voting system was probably unfair.
“Probably”? Tens of thousands of people being fallaciously labeled as “Felons” and stripped of their right to vote is hardly an ambiguous situation. Especially when those people are disproportionately black and the woman in charge is in with the Bushes like fingers in a glove.
Oh, and don’t even get me started on the “Stop the Recount” campaign and who headed it up.
However, this aberration does little to attract from America’s proud democratic heritage.
No. It does. Because their ruler was not the one they wanted under any measure.
Nepal was an absolute monarchy until 1990, it has been a federal republic for a few months. Enough said?
So far they seem to be doing a better job. Early days but fine ones.
The doctrine was that bad things get worse when powerful democracies do nothing to stop them. This seems perfectly valid.
It does, up until you realise that sanctions killed over half a million Iraqi children and that the Iraq War fall out looks set to top even that. Take a look at reality some time, it’s quite an ugly place lately.
It never suggested John Major was as bad as Milosevic. The Americans and British did not stand idle. They have been fighting the insurgents since 2003. It is perverse that you think the British Army which distributes humanitarian aid and tries to protect civilians is as complicit in their deaths as al’ Qaeda.
Yeah, strawman.
And did you hear about those SAS chaps driving around dressed as arabs shooting people that got arrested? Perhaps not, but they did get busted out of the jail cell they were in by our brave boys a few days later. That’s not what sounds like humanitarian work to me. Or protecting civilians.
So that’s fine. No need for democracy or basic human rights as long as we have order. Just as long as you don’t rock the boat, or happen to be Kurdish or Shia, nothing to worry about. Surely that’s about reactionary as arguments get?
Oh GTFO. Saddam was a man nearing his seventies who had a history of cancer. I’m suggesting that the amount he would have killed before his demise and the amount our jolly little attempt to bring “Democracy and human rights” have are tipped very firmly in favour of the latter. You can argue that the carnage would have ensued anyway but would all Iraqi democrats have been tarnished with association with the West in that instance? No, no they would not.
So cease your incessant straw-mannery and consider that basic piece of human arithmetic.
Who said it brought peace? Iraq is less stable than before the invasion, unquestionably. No one thought it would be peaceful for a while
Yes they did.
(although it’s a lot more peaceful than if we’d waited and Turkey, Iran, al’Qaeda and the internal opposition had fought a proxy war). We invaded to bring human rights and democracy. This is now the case even if they are under threat from barbarism.
Human rights have been brought? But I thought that retarded people were being strapped with bombs and used to deprive vast swathes of other humans their right to live?
And if you define “Human rights” as “White phosphorous” then yes, the Americans have certainly introduced plenty.
They believe, as I do, that the invasion of Iraq spread democracy to that country.
I’m sure that that is a vast amount of consolation to the massive amount of dead and their families. I’m sure that the Iraqis don’t mind the extra risk of death, which is obviously why so many of them are leaving as quickly as they can to get a better look from the outside and as far away as possible.
They believe that the success of free trade autocracies in China and Russia and to a lesser extent the regional power of Venezuela and Iran offer a new model. Rulers who traditionally couldn’t stand the idea of relinquishing power but recognised it as necessary if their country was to modernise its economy (free trade + democracy) now see they can have one without the other and still be a superpower or be powers without either.
Venuzuela is a free trade autocracy? A regional power? I’ve lost track of your fantasy world here.
Why is it that you can write two paragraphs on “American war crimes”, comparing the attack on Fallujah to Belsen
Nice to see you not responding to that, by the way. Shows what you consider to be indefensible, even if you won’t admit to it. Incidentally, if you had been a Fallujan you’d have been one of the ones left trapped inside. You’re an eighteen year old male. Bears thinking about.
You have to at least wonder how quickly the nerve endings melt when the flesh starts to disintegrate…
guess that’s Godwin’s Law too!)
Well actually the law states that as an internet discussion advances in time the probability of the Nazis being mentioned approaches 1. So not really but all the same, it’s why I thanked you for doing it to spare me triggering it. And it’s much the same, really: you lock people up and deprive them of sterile water or healthcare, they die. You keep people inside a city and then pound it with Weapons of Mass Destruction and they die horribly and end up as charred corpses.
It’s much the same, just your defence of this nonsense invasion prevents you from accepting an atrocity for what it is. Thousands were trapped inside a city and then “Operation Phantom Fury” was unleashed over their bodies.
And you don’t really seem to care.
without a single thing on the 600,000 dead as a result of internal terrorism, except that it’s our fault just as much as theirs? Your opposition to the invasion does tread worryingly close to apologism for modern-day fascists.
LOL. Shut the fuck up.
Seriously. You think I’m in favour of targeting civilians areas being bombed? The answer to that is so obvious I’ll tell you something more important it’s not relevant. If there was someone here advocating Jihad I would do {and upon other occasions I’ve attacked that philosophy anyway with as much vigour as I can muster} but until then I’ll focus on you and your backing of a war that’s killing every day it continues. Because you’re here and you’re trying to convince me that smashing infrastructure and ending lives doesn’t matter so long as whoever’s left alive at the end gets to pick their favourite useless thug puppet. That’s the sort of thing that needs attacking if this kind of idiocy is going to be averted again. Your apologism for American war crimes {scare quote that all you want} and your pretense that you can tear down a dam and wash your hands of the flood. And it’s nice to see you imagining that the bombing of civilian areas by the US and UK airforce, shooting of innocents at check-points and all the countless other means of “Coalition” forces killing civilians somehow constitute “Internal terrorism”, Ben.
I’m not in favour of civilian areas being attacked by terrorists. The only difference between us is that I’ll face up to the fact that that’s what happened in Fallujah. And that that’s what “Shock&Awe” was. And that that’s something that Saddam held at bay.
I supect at least one of you is deliberately trying to annoy the other. Ironically, it’s the former who is talking most sense.