|
| Thread: 9/11 Victims = Nazis? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted February 24, 2005 06:20 PM |
|
|
Yes, Svarog, the "fringe" appears to be "lunatic" at either end of the spectrum. Let's take Ward, for example...
You just about can't get any more anti-war than him, at least in terms of the war in Iraq. And most people in America are clearly counting him as "extremist."
N'est pas?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Psychobabble
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 02:38 AM |
|
|
The radical left and africa...
Believe it or not, I just read this mammoth post. It's a great discussion, good airing of issues, some personal involvement which is always good, and very little trolling. It's a shame a lot of the discussion is from one side of the spectrum, though. It's the side of the spectrum I generally agree with, but it's always good to have broad ideas challenged. Anyway, considering there seems to be a number of here who identify with the radical left I thought I'd throw out something which has been on my mind for a while...
The radical left intelligensia (chomsky, zinn, roy, ward* et al.) is primarily concerned with expressions of American power/imperialism however that might be defined. Where american power is absent, the situation doesn't really recieve intellectual scrutiny. Unfortunately the entire continent of Africa is largely free of direct american military power (since the end of the cold war and the various proxy battles there), and yet this is where the most (by FAR) human on human violent deaths occurr. The Congo, Sudan and other conflicts... America can only be held responsible for these through its inaction, but (the consequences of) action is what concerns the radical left. These horrendous conflicts should concern those who care about victims of war far more than, say, the Iraq or Afghanistani invasions based upon the scale of victimisation, but in the end it is not victims the radical left is concerned with, it is the victimisers. And if the victimisers are not American then it doesn't receive attention.
I'd describe myself as a liberal (in the American, not Australian, sense of the word). I am not opposed to using military and political power globally in an attempt to do good, and I believe the innatention and (practical) inaction of the west with respect to Africa is morally wrong. The radical left perpetuates this wrong by reflexively opposing foreign action and simply failing to identify with the plight of vast classes of victims because the victimisers are not American.
*note, I've never heard of the guy before this post, I hope I'm not mistaken in placing him in this group.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 02, 2005 04:20 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 1 Mar 2005
|
Oh Do Tell...
Quote:
There seems to be a number of here who identify with the radical left
You have no idea. I think myself and Wolfman are the lone moderates here, sometimes reaching to the right. Shadowcaster and RedSoxFan3 might also be too but I am still unsure. Anyway it feels like he and I are the only ones. And he's gone most of the time(riding horses in the backwoods of Okie).
As per your mention of the Sudanese inaction of my country: I couldn't agree more. I even created a thread
("Attack Sudan?") about it but the responses were laughable. As I recall one poster's exact words were, "Attack Le Big Mac". I was very frustrated and deleted the whole thread in the end as I was the only one who really wanted to talk about it. I think Defreni was the only one who actually began intelligent conversation in it.
Colin Powell openly marked it as "genocide" and I quite agree but our president only cares about one thing, Iraq. Africa will get no help from the U.S.(excluding wealthy humanity crusaders) until his second term is up in 2008.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 04:28 AM |
|
|
Africa? Do they still remember it exists? I too think its one of the places where theres real hell, and no one pays attention. But to say the victimizers in Africa arent Western at all is to neglect a horrible historical contribution of several centuries, and a current economic exploitation. I'm not sure if the radical leftists arent much concerned with the problem; its just that due to the public focus on Iraq, the only way for their voice to be heard is to talk about whatever the mainstream wants to hear. As long as exploitation goes smooth in Africa, it'll stay neglected. Thats the biggest reason why the West doesnt want to get involved in African matters. (take Zimbabwe, as an opposite example) Another might be that ethnic problems are always the most delicate ones to handle.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Psychobabble
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 05:41 AM |
|
|
@Consis
Don't be too afraid of the radical left, they do have useful things to say and they are right to point out the oft-ignored trail of destruction left by the worst excesses of US foreign policy in the 70s and 80s. But I would argue they suffer a chronic myopia on both this issue and on economic issues (ie opposition to NAFTA/free trade on the basis that US jobs will go to people in poorer countries is, frankly, immoral).
But it's good to see another who believes that intervention (of some form) in African conflicts is a good idea, in principle. I also agree with you that the current administration is unlikely to do anything about the issue, Conservatives having decried Clinton's Balkan excercise as "social work". However, don't forget that Bush did a genuinely good thing in backing AU (African Union) troops in Liberia.
@Svarog
Quote:
Africa? Do they still remember it exists? I too think its one of the places where theres real hell, and no one pays attention...
I'm not sure if the radical leftists aren't much concerned with the problem; its just that due to the public focus on Iraq, the only way for their voice to be heard is to talk about whatever the mainstream wants to hear. As long as exploitation goes smooth in Africa, it'll stay neglected.
A few things
A) Liberals do pay attention to Africa - Sudan, Congo (previously Somalia, Rwanda, Balkans) are high concerns, but the radical left in general does not. I'm not just talking about what's reported, the only times you will ever hear these guys talking about Africa in their own writing is if there is a direct US link.
Quote:
But to say the victimizers in Africa arent Western at all is to neglect a horrible historical contribution of several centuries, and a current economic exploitation.
I do not deny that economic factors contributes to AIDS problems throughout Africa or to localised conflicts in the Niger Delta (Shell). But please justify that statement more broadly.
Quote:
Thats the biggest reason why the West doesnt want to get involved in African matters. (take Zimbabwe, as an opposite example)
I don't understand what you mean here. No one in the West really gains, economically, from massive, ongoing, entrenched ethnic violence. Even if you were to draw an arms sales link, it'd be a very long bow and the profits would be minor compared to what could be sustained in peace time. These conflicts ruin these countries economically, that's not good for them or western business interests.
As an aside, some members of the radical left support Mugabe in Zimbabwe due to his anti-imperialist rhetoric and his land distribution, conveniently ignoring his shocking human rights abuses, his supression of dissent and how he has contributed to massive famine.
Quote:
Another might be that ethnic problems are always the most delicate ones to handle.
Delicate, yes, but saying they are intractable due to their cultural past is getting dangerously close to racism ("them savages can never be tamed").
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 06:57 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 2 Mar 2005
|
Psychobabble,
That's Svarog. He's our resident Castro-socialist expert from Macedonia who secretly wishes for war between Europe and the U.S.. He doesn't like the U.S. from a Macedonian perspective(perhaps because of NATO intervention in Kosovo). You'll find that a lot here; that is people who dislike Americans for one reason or another. I'd say more people dislike us than not. I've learned to filter his insinuations of American imperialism for a while now. Don't let him get under your skin though. He's really good at coming up with Heroes-related game ideas; probably stemming from his interest in Greek mythology(must be a Macedonian thing  ).
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 05:51 PM |
|
|
Hey Consis -- good day, man!Quote:
...I think myself and Wolfman are the lone moderates here, sometimes reaching to the right. Shadowcaster and RedSoxFan3 might also be too but I am still unsure.
--HEY -- what about me??? (Jumps up in the back of the room and does the Horshack wave.)
First of all, most of my activist friends consider me a "Moderate" if not a "Moderate Conservative." Personally I think I fall a bit more to the "left" than they give me credit for, but I suppose it depends what you mean by the terms "left" and "Right."
So how 'bout it Svarog? Where do you think I fall on the spectrum? (Asked the staunch Powell-supporter) (LOL)
Oh, and another thing -- Wolfman, a Moderate? (ROFL!!!) Haven't you been paying attention, man? Wolfman is a pretty straight up Republican, about as conservative as you can get without being in the afore-mentioned fringe. This aside, he is my adopted son/little brother and I love him dearly. We have talked for long hours on the side. I think we respect one another tremendously (I know I do) even though we disgree about practically everything! Wolf is a very bright young man. I seriously anticipate he will be a Republican presidential candidate one day. My only hope is that I and others can soften his hard-right views a bit with divergent perspectives before he actually gets there.
BTW, Consis -- sorry I never saw your "Attack Sudan" thread. Unless something comes up and slaps me in the face with a robot red-flag in my e-mail I don't see a lot of stuff that goes on here. I just never made it in there to post, and so never got started with any robot notifications.
Now, for Psychobabble -- Hello there! I do not believe I have come across you yet. It's nice to hear another thoughtful voice coming into this mix.
Quote:
The radical left intelligensia (chomsky, zinn, roy, ward* et al.) is primarily concerned with expressions of American power/imperialism however that might be defined. Where american power is absent, the situation doesn't really recieve intellectual scrutiny. Unfortunately the entire continent of Africa is largely free of direct american military power (since the end of the cold war and the various proxy battles there), and yet this is where the most (by FAR) human on human violent deaths occurr. The Congo, Sudan and other conflicts... America can only be held responsible for these through its inaction, but (the consequences of) action is what concerns the radical left. These horrendous conflicts should concern those who care about victims of war far more than, say, the Iraq or Afghanistani invasions based upon the scale of victimisation, but in the end it is not victims the radical left is concerned with, it is the victimisers. And if the victimisers are not American then it doesn't receive attention.
A couple of comments here -- First, I suppose this idea could be true of some activists, but not the ones I know. In this community, the concern over imperialism runs a bit deeper historically than just American involvement. American imperialism is considered just the latest manifestation of the European Imperialist model, which encompasses all exploitative activities in the name of the great global industrialist/corporate/capitalist paradigm. In essence, the entire global presence and influence of "Westernism," with all the fallout it has caused everywhere.
Let's take Darfur, for example. See the following:
http://www.peacenews.info/issues/2456/2456051.html
Here's a more general article about anti-globalization I just came across, it is somewhat relevant to my point here:
http://www.geocities.com/arthursank/poor.html
And consider the rather enormous protests you've read and heard about (I hope) against the IMF, World Bank and the G-8 Summits.
Generally, the fact that there is not a lot of media attention to activist activities over many concerns in Africa may mislead people who rely on the media as their main source of information. That said, there may be some truth in the idea that activism currently focuses primarily on the Iraq war. But this is probably more likely an effect of the pre-determined national focus, rather than an indication of bias on the part of activists. It is possible that to some extent, activists recognize actions concerning Africa are futile at this stage in the game because of said pre-determined focus.
Either way, I can promise you that most of those you call "radicals" are very concerned with the "victimized" whether they are Americans or not (if not even moreso), and that this is the whole point behind the critique against the "victimizer," whether it is America nor not. At least that's the social model for activism here in Denver.
Oh, and BTW, your placement of Ward with Chompsky and Zinn is pretty right on -- it's just that Ward is not quite as diplomatic as those guys in saying many of the same things and working from similar global analytical models. Now I have what may be a stupid question: Who's Roy?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 07:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have no idea. I think myself and Wolfman are the lone moderates here, sometimes reaching to the right.
Is this just an american thing, or can I be told which extreme I apparently lean towards? 
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 07:26 PM |
|
|
I believe he's referring to Arhundati Roy (not too sure about the first name there), an Indian "anti-globalization" activist. I'm not sure, though...
And as for radical leftists not being concerned with Africa, I think PM hit the spot there, with her theory about blaming your ignorance (no criticism intended here; I just couldn't think of a better word...) on the lack of mainstream media coverage. I believe this because I read several Norwegian non-mainstream radical leftist newspapers, and there’s lots of stuff in them about radical leftists doing stuff for Africa (I could have been more specific here, I guess, but my memory’s kinda bad these days).
As for Zinn, Chomsky and that lot, I think the reason why they mainly direct their criticism at American Imperialism is that they after all are Americans themselves (Chomsky may be Canadian or something, but he’s non the less a Linguistics professor at MiT), and thus it’s most relevant for them to criticise the actions of their own country.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 07:29 PM |
|
|
Well...
Keeping in mind that this is all my singular opinion, I'm sure we won't have a problem taking what I say with the grain of salt; as it were.
Normally I would consider yourself a moderate Peacemaker. Far be it from me to paint-the-Peacemaker-picture(try saying that 5 times fast!), but the more I read the Attack Iraq thread, the less I think of you as moderate and the more I think of you as left. You seem to be a leftist that wants to vote for a right-wing-moderate like Powell. I only call him right-wing because of his service in the Bush administration and dictatorial roots as an army general. His ethnocentric(word of the day) roots seem to yet be blossoming as time goes on. There are many types of leftist philosophies in the U.S. You are not the socialist so much as you are the uber-environmentalist and compassionate humanist. For some reason you seem to enjoy ignoring Powell's military background. Perhaps his open interest in global civility is the cause(I really don't know). That's what is most confusing about you to me. I see a largely compassionate humanist leaning heavily toward a deeply entrenched militaristic delegate of and for the people. But here is where the great contrast leaps forward: 'For the people' and 'of the people' does not necessarily mean 'by the people'.
I am still learning more about you though. The more I read helps me understand you better.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 07:52 PM |
|
|
You may come away from Attack Iraq thread thinking my comments are anti-Iraq war. Where I'm really coming from is anti-Iraq strategy.
I think we should be approaching terrorism on a global scale for purely tactical reasons, and yes, sometimes those tactics include ground warfare, if done properly and only where it will be more effective than counterproductive. I'm not anti-Bush because he's a Republican. I'm anti-Bush because he's a zealot, and not a very bright one at that, who completely ignored the rantings of all of us that what is falling apart right now in Iraq was bound to fall apart because of a series of incredibly obvious strategic blunders -- the same ones over which Powell desperately but quietly tried to tug-of-war against the rest of the administration, unfortunately to no avail.
Powell and I are on almost exactly the same page when it comes to the tactical/strategic collapse of the Iraq campaign. I choose him to head this process because he is a strategist, not just a Republican, not just a Democrat, not just a Moderate. A strategist, and a highly developed statesman who could pull off multinational anti-terrorist coalition movements and strategies that (IMHO)practically nobody else on the horizon I see could pulling off.
His military background is incidental, relevant only to his understanding of effective strategy. With that exception I do not judge him either way because of it. Remember where Reagan started? And now he's considered one of the finest presidents in American history. What one did before does not necessarily dictate anything about what kind of a president one will be.
PH, until you came here and agreed even more with my moderately conservative husband than I do on many current issues, I would have said you tend to lean slightly more to the left than I do. Personally I think we are both floating somewhere around left-of-the-middle, as many people who engage in serious analysis of a given situation frequently do.
Of course, calling us both Moderates is probably as funny to Wolf as Consis calling Wolf a Moderate is to us.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think we should be approaching terrorism on a global scale for purely tactical reasons, and yes, sometimes those tactics include ground warfare, if done properly and only where it will be more effective than counterproductive.
Bort enters stage right. Applauds, kisses hand of speaker. Exit Bort stage left.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 02, 2005 11:14 PM |
|
|
WOW --
I think bort just complimented me....
Thanks, bort.
(speaker faints)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Psychobabble
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2005 12:53 AM |
|
|
First, I should note I'm Australian and while I do mainly read newspapers, I actually do read a fair bit of radical writings and websites. We also have a fairly active Socialist Alternative chapter on campus (more on that later) which I 'engage' with occasionally.
Quote:
A couple of comments here -- First, I suppose this idea could be true of some activists, but not the ones I know. In this community, the concern over imperialism runs a bit deeper historically than just American involvement. American imperialism is considered just the latest manifestation of the European Imperialist model, which encompasses all exploitative activities in the name of the great global industrialist/corporate/capitalist paradigm. In essence, the entire global presence and influence of "Westernism," with all the fallout it has caused everywhere.
Sorry, I shouldn't have narrowed the focus so much on America. I realise the radical left is concerned with imperialism more generally and especially historically (mmmm, post-colonialism), but it's probably fair to say that the main focus of current anti-imperialism is America (as has been discussed in this thread).
Quote:
Let's take Darfur, for example. See the following:
http://www.peacenews.info/issues/2456/2456051.html
I don't disagree that individual groups are concerned with the violence - though as with many self-proclaimed peace activists their methods for getting it are somewhat fuzzy. Note they "demand that the Sudanese government should stop the genocide in Darfur", but unfortunately "The African Union is considering deploying 2,500 troops in the region (drawn from African countries), though the Sudanese government is opposed to such a large force." This sort of protest isn't going to put pressure on Western governments to act which is what I'm saying should happen.
Anyway, my major point is that the leading intelligensia, those who mobilise and focus the radical left are largely silent on these conflicts. Take this comment from Roy (as pointed out, Indian peace activist Arundhati Roy who has (crazily)* won a prominant peace award in Australia recently) which are symptomatic:
"the real and pressing danger, the greatest threat of all, is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the U.S. government."
It's nothing of the sort. The US government does do terrible things throughout the world, but others do much worse. This is why I can't help but draw the conclusion that the concern is with the victimiser, not the victimised. Read Chomsky, read Zinn, read radical websites and tell me there is honestly a widespread call for western governments to intervene in African conflicts. Then read liberal flag carriers like TNR and see the difference.
Quote:
But this is probably more likely an effect of the pre-determined national focus, rather than an indication of bias on the part of activists. It is possible that to some extent, activists recognize actions concerning Africa are futile at this stage in the game because of said pre-determined focus.
Oh, come on, radical activists are constantly harping on (not without reason) about things the mainstream press and politics don't pay attention to - surely you aren't just saying they really do care about this issue but aren't getting riled up about it because it isn't a cable news network talking point?
Quote:
Either way, I can promise you that most of those you call "radicals" are very concerned with the "victimized" whether they are Americans or not (if not even moreso), and that this is the whole point behind the critique against the "victimizer," whether it is America nor not. At least that's the social model for activism here in Denver.
First, I think you missed my point a little, I wasn't saying the activists were only concerned with American victims, I was saying they were only concerned with victims when the US was doing the victimising. Important difference.
What I'm saying is that activism (as you described) does portray itself as being concerned with the victim but the real focus of the radical left betrays this ideal. The African conflict example which I've been using is possibly the most glaring because the scale of victimisation is immense, but the response is paltry. And I would content that this blind eye is also brought about because these are situations where American power could be brought to bear for good, which would undermine the fundamental narrative which attempts to paint everything the US ever does as bad. For instance, stick your hand up if you know Bush (yes, the devil incarnate) signed an emission control treaty which is expected to have the same practical effect as Kyoto (ie reduction in global emissions by 1-2%). See here for the official details and the bottom of here for analysis.
My point is not that Bush and US power is good, but just that it is only ambiguously bad and attempting to paint it as bad both closes off lines of potential help for victims (military/political intervention) and ignores reality.
Quote:
Here's a more general article about anti-globalization I just came across, it is somewhat relevant to my point here:
http://www.geocities.com/arthursank/poor.html
And consider the rather enormous protests you've read and heard about (I hope) against the IMF, World Bank and the G-8 Summits.
So far I've mainly limited my discussion to military conflicts and violent deaths.
@terje
Once again, please read what I'm saying. I'm not saying activist ignore Africa entirely. They are concerned about AIDS (though often more concerned about symbolic enemies such as US support for abstinance programs than real barriers to help), oil interests in nigeria and cote d'ivore, poverty/starvation (often in a rather abstract sense) and with the vestiges of european colonialism. I am saying that, on the whole, they ignore the enormously destructive conflicts that rage across vast regions of the continent.
*Note she is an active defender of the resistance in Iraq "Of course, [the Iraqi resistance] is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery, and criminality. But, if we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity." Ugh. Morality applies to the US, but not to those who oppose them.
|
|
Psychobabble
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2005 12:55 AM |
|
|
Oops, didn't entirely finish my paragraph
...So far I've mainly limited my discussion to military conflicts and violent deaths. If we want to talk about economic issues it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but with occasional similarities.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 03, 2005 04:24 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 2 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
A) Liberals do pay attention to Africa - Sudan, Congo (previously Somalia, Rwanda, Balkans) are high concerns, but the radical left in general does not.I'm not just talking about what's reported, the only times you will ever hear these guys talking about Africa in their own writing is if there is a direct US link.
First off, I keep staring and wondering myself why are the Balkans put under the Africa section. And u did the same in another paragraph. Second, you are seemingly right when you say the “radical left” (ambiguous construct btw) only care about africa when US are involved as “victimizers”. Thing is, radical left claim the US (West) are chronical victimizers, not in a direct manner, as invaders, but exploitators. Mind you, this has a lot more bearing than it seems, and cant mean that Africa is ignored by extreme left activists.
What it can mean (and what I strongly claim) is that the moderate (quasi-)left in US (aka the democrats) are the ones that don’t pay attention to africa. There werent any American-lead interventions in Africa (even in the countries you mentioned, Somalia aside) simply because they had no interest there. The burning question in Africa is the economy, and it is in this way that Africa is ignored the most. The radicals surely warn and constantly write about this problem.
Quote:
I do not deny that economic factors contributes to AIDS problems throughout Africa or to localized conflicts in the Niger Delta (Shell). But please justify that statement more broadly.
Its not just AIDS and localized conflicts; it’s the entire neo-colonialist exploitatory trade system, which skins Africa of its natural riches for lousy money. Poor unindustrialized economy breeds (or enables) all the problems, including ethnic ones, and in this prospect, the radical left hits right on the spot, localizes the core of the problem. Unfortunately, they are alone in this. On the other hand, American moderate left (which in my book are even more dangerous than Republicans) often only complicates the problems through selective intervention modeled exclusively to suit American interests. It is now required from the radical left to support “humanitarian” interventions, and in case they have doubts, it is used as a weapon to discredit their inteligentsia, for being chit-chat cowards. It is expected of them to shout and faint for a spark, when there is a blazing fire going on. Often this causes them to entrench in their paranoic attitude to all US actions, and suspicious of motives (and they are absolutely right for so) even miss a chance to support an intervention which would likely prevent more harm than without one. Of course there are some leftist factions which are pretty much anti-interventionist and would support military action only if mandated by the UN, so it depends also on their specific ideological profile.
Quote:
Delicate, yes, but saying they are intractable due to their cultural past is getting dangerously close to racism ("them savages can never be tamed").
No one mentioned that, although it’s a common opinion among ordinary people in the West. Still, ethnic conflicts are universally delicate, even among “Aryan whites”.
Quote:
That's Svarog. He's our resident Castro-socialist expert from Macedonia who secretly wishes for war between Europe and the U.S..
I cant make up my mind, Consis, what would be more funny: if this was a joke, or the fact that you really honestly believe the poofs you wrote there. Hmmmm, the latter, I’d say.
Ok, ok, I admit I’m an avid hater of all that is American and even now I’m having wet dreams of French bombs glittering on the skyline of New York. Maybe even an Airbus crashing in the Empire State Building, why not. So, better leave these few lines for me to present myself in front of new members next time. No need for you to do me that favor.
Quote:
So how 'bout it Svarog? Where do you think I fall on the spectrum?
Ah Picie, you want stick you on the spectrum, huh... Its hard, i feel like I’m chaining you too much by doing so. Though, I’d say you are very liberal, you have a deep and critical understanding of social processes, which makes you leftist. But it’s the streak of multiculturalism, or more broadly said - culturalism about you that stabilizes you in a kind of ethno-cultural frame, along with the rest of the nationalists, not a very pleasant company indeed. And know the fact that I don’t know how you approach economy at all, so that was just an evaluation of your political coordinates.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted March 03, 2005 04:33 AM |
|
|
I'm with PH here. (strange )
What is seen as extremist (either side) in America does not necessarily constitute extremism in other countries.
While not viewing myself as a Conservative (means something different in the UK), I don't see myself as the Red Army's latest recruit either.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 07, 2005 09:25 PM |
|
|
Political Facade
 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/ncaa/03/07/cu.hoffman.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
Quote:
University of Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman resigned Monday amid a football recruiting scandal and a national controversy over an activist professor who compared victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to a notorious Nazi.
I smell a right-wing conspiracy. If only Hillary were president then those bastards would get what they deserve.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 07, 2005 10:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Terje
Once again, please read what I'm saying. I'm not saying activist ignore Africa entirely. They are concerned about AIDS (though often more concerned about symbolic enemies such as US support for abstinence programs than real barriers to help), oil interests in Nigeria and cote d'ivore, poverty/starvation (often in a rather abstract sense) and with the vestiges of European colonialism. I am saying that, on the whole, they ignore the enormously destructive conflicts that rage across vast regions of the continent.
Hmm, I think the leftist radicals you are referring to are someone entirely different than the ones I'm referring to.
I won’t comment on Americans, Aussies, Kiwis or whatever, but stick to what I know, which is the Norwegian conditions (which I obviously don’t expect anyone to know anything about ).
First, to the matter of the AIDS disaster, which in many ways is the most destructive entity raging the continent these days. It is, actually, immensely more destructive than any other present conflict in Africa, since almost a whole generation of Africans are being swept away by the murderous current that is AIDS.
I guess Norwegian radicals aren’t exactly alone in this, but anyway, they are, and have been for quite some time, demanding that AIDS medicines, in addition to replicas of said medicines and all other medicines for that matter, shouldn’t be subject to copyright laws. This could have saved thousands, no, millions of lives all over the world, since AIDS medicine is too expensive for an average African AIDS victim to afford.
As for the conflicts created by humans, a member of the Norwegian government, from the Christian Democratic party (who, by all standards other than Norwegians are radicals), has recently negotiated a treaty (in companionship with Powell) between the Southern and the Northern Sudanese, who’ve been waging civil war for the last 20 years.
This isn’t much though, so I agree that they probably could have done more, but this doesn’t apply to the leftist radicals any more than to the neo-conservatives (excepting of course that while radical leftists care for the suffering of other people, the neo-cons and the liberalists only care for their bank accounts…
As for the “vestiges of European colonialism”: They’re not to be dismissed so lightly. I mean, have you even looked at a map of Africa? You don’t actually believe that those ruler-straight borders are natural, do you? (If you do, do a google on “the Berlin conference”.) You don’t think that the placements of those borders are irrelevant to conflicts raging in Africa today? You don’t believe that an almost 600 years long constant plunder of an entire continent is irrelevant to what’s going on today? You don’t think that the way the colonies were abandoned in had any influence on the current state of things?
Something tells me you’re not this ignorant…
When it comes to the matter of poverty/starvation, it’s proven time and again (though the World Bank of course disagrees) that the most important requirement for peace and stability ain’t democracy or anything like that; it’s simply economic (and social) equalization. Reduce the differences within a society, and it will get more stable. Increase the level of wealth within a society, and it will become more peaceful (unless it’s run by greedy, egoistic, uncivilized bastards, of course. Such a country would only get greedier by a raise in wealth. Or, more precisely, its rulers would…  )
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2005 10:13 PM |
|
|
I don't know Consis, it seems like a regular football
scandal and professor that went to far. I'm pretty sure
the right wingers didn't egg those players on to abuse
those ladies. Of course, they may be right wingers them selves in which case, its getting kind of subtle, sacrificing like that to get the Pres of the U
____________
|
| |
|
|
