Re: What's our freedom worth ?

Howard9 wrote:

Do you have ANY evidence that they don't want to decide who runs
their countries or government or make their laws. Do you have ANY
such evidence ?

There is plenty of evidence of who they *don't* want doing it - America and,
more generally, the West.

the early Meji period was brutal and militaristic, all right, but during
the second half of the 19th century Japan did what no other country has
done. It pulled itself from the middle ages into the modern world, and
it did it under its own steam, not propped up by the Americans or
anyone else.

And invaded half of Asia, brutalising, torturing and murdering
civilians. Seems that doesn't qualify as brutal in you dictionary ?

Straw man. I just said "the early Meji period was brutal". Anyway, my point
was what Japan achieved of its own initiative during the second half of the
19th century, not what it did during the first half of the 20th.

These are very determined people. You are right, their society
is stable, but its stability comes from within, not from some
candy called democracy given by the Americans.

Wrong. It comes from their democratic system.

Way back in 1549, Francis Xavier wrote:

"...we shall never find...another race to equal the Japanese. They are a
people of very good manners, good in general, and not malicious; they are
men of honour..." Et cetera.

They were an advanced society before Europeans even went to America, just as
Arabic/Islamic culture was developing mathematics, algebra, medicine,
chemistry, etc., to high levels at a time when Europe was largely in chaos.

Not voting is a democratic right not enjoyed by anyone in the
middle east before the present Iraqi liberation.
[snip]
So much for your knowledge of the basic facts.
[snip]
My knowledge is clearly in a different class to you. You appear to be
under the delusion that the percentage of people voting is a measure of
democracy ? what a stupid and idiotic assertion.

Straw man. I never said anything of the kind. If anything, you are the one
who appears to equate democracy with the right to vote.You said "not voting
is a democratic right not enjoyed by anyone in the middle east" and I
pointed out that you were wrong. That's all.

Pakistan is a democracy ? are you for real ? Pakistan is a military
dictatorship.

Straw man. I never said anything of the kind.

If you'd stop and think about it, you'd see how Pakistan is an excellent
illustration of the general situation. Musharef deposed Sharief, the elected
leader, and imposed a military dictatorship. Why does America support him?
Because they know that, paradoxically, he is more liberal than many of his
countrymen. As the BBC says:

"Western observers may be baffled at the images of Muslim rioters burning
the properties of other Muslims in protest at sacrilege committed by Danes.

"But they may find the situation easier to understand if they give a
thought to what might be the real target of the rioters.

"Is it a bunch of nameless and faceless cartoonists living in Denmark or
a government at home which is threatening their orthodoxy with its liberal
rhetoric?"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4716762.stm)

You're not doing very well so far.

You said "not voting is a democratic right not enjoyed by anyone in the
middle east". I proved you wrong; people all over the Middle East have had
the right both to vote and not to vote, in elections that have ranged from
mere farce to serious empowerment of the will of the people.

But my being right and your being wrong somehow translates in your mind to
*me* not doing very well. How ironic!

Duh.. what an assenine and irrelevant rant. So they don't like their
democracy because they oppose another country's actions ...? pitiful.

Straw man. It really would help if you responded to the points I actually
make, rather than inventing your own points and responding to them.

When have people voted for communism ?

Frequently.

Please let me know.

Why should I? I corrected your ignorance over the right to vote or not to
vote in the Middle East, and all you do is try and wriggle out of it and
make it look as if *I* am in the wrong.

Where have they voted for religious fundamentalism ?

In a significant number of countries around the world, in some cases with
devastating results. The funny thing is, that the fact that religious
fundamentalists have prevailed at the ballot boxes is actually a point in
your favour, indicating that extremism is indeed mainstream in the countries
where this has happened.

I would like to know.

Then I suggest you google for it.

In Germany they voted for a fascist government. That was their choice
and that is democracy.

They democratically voted *not* to have a democracy. And yet, according to
you all people everywhere *want* democracy. Germany in 1925 proves you
wrong, doesn't it? So do numerous other elections around the world between
then and now.

Your implication that only action supported by Islam is valid, is
ridiculous.

It was extremely reassuring, during the first Gulf War, to know that the
Arab world was as determined to get Saddam out of Kuwait as the West was. At
that stage, we were united in a common cause. The West was not united with
the Arab/Islamic world in a common cause when it invaded Iraq. That is
disturbing, and we will be living with the consequences for many years to
come.

Try to stick with one subject before you side step. The subject was
the IRA, not Sin Fein.

I am merely wondering where you got your 2% figure from. Sinn Fein is the
political wing of the IRA, and support for it can be objectively measured.
Support for an outlawed organisation cannot be measured in the same way.

I repeat, even though the majority may not approve, or engage in
such activities themselves, they will not fail to open the door and
give shelter to an IRA fugitive pursued by British soldiers.

Not true.

Oh, come on. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and the British army
undeniably made itself the enemy. IRA members counted on the tacit support
of the ordinary people, at least in certain neighbourhoods. How else were
they able to appear openly at such events as funerals, knowing they would
have the support and protection of the people around them? How else could
they have set up the no-go areas? Free Derry was known as such for a long
time after the barricades were removed. How could all this have happened if
there had been no support for the IRA, as you claim?

Is this a serious question? Very well then:

"The IMF/World Bank conditions
Snip irrelevant content<<

Oh. So you *didn't* want an answer to your question.

Colonialist repression in another guise.

They lend money to people. They set conditions. Just like any
bank. You are more and more delusionary.

The conditions they set are unlike those of any bank I am familiar with.

"agricultural subsidies in industrial countries, which are equivalent to
2/3 of Africa's total GDP, undermine developing countries' agricultural
sectors and exports by depressing world prices and pre-empting
markets."
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2001/110801.htm#iii
[snip]
And before you start snorting that this is just the ranting of some
quango, take a good look at the source - that is the view of the
IMF itself!

And it's accurate.

So you agree that European agricultural subsidies undermine developing
countries. Thank you.

The IMF have done a fantastic job all across the world.

Could you give some examples of things you consider they have done well?

Many bad things happened to Islam. As they did to all nations
around the world. This is no excuse for the present actions
of what some claim to be the xtreme elements of Islam and
I suggest may be more mainstream.

Why are you still chewing on this? I've already said that nothing
excuses atrocities.

Because you say it and then excuse it at every turn.

You contradict yourself. You said (repeatedly) that I offer no excuses. I
reply that there *are* no excuses. Then you say I excuse it at every turn.
You can't have it both ways!

So you oppose democracy because you are afraid of what the result
might be... how daft is that. I support the right of people to chose their
own government. It is not our decision what they chose to do with that
freedom.

America is very much concerned with what they choose to do with that
freedom. That is why Musharef is a tactical ally. That is why it is closely
involved with the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Its failure to engage
with the Algerian dictatorship was a major security lapse, without which
9/11 might never have happened.

For my entire lifetime, America has encouraged military dictatorships when
it has feared the democratic will of the people. You say I demonise America,
and I do consider that sometimes (for example, when they conspired to bring
about the downfall of democratic government in Chile [Allende] and install a
puppet dictatorship [Pinichet]) they have behaved extremely badly. However,
on this occasion I understand their concern.

The British were scared of the Irish at that time. They went
through all the same dance steps - counter-terrorist laws,
emergency powers. And, when the cities were "full of snarling
hate filled" Catholics (as they saw it) they had their tanks and
SAS squadrons out in the streets to "deal" with it.

Completely untrue and inaccurate.

Oh. So there were no counter-terrorist laws, no emergency powers,
and no tanks or SAS squadrons out in the streets to deal with
rioting crowds.

No.

"The Prevention of Terrorism Acts were a series of Acts of Parliament in the
United Kingdom from 1974 to 1989, which conferred emergency powers upon
police forces where they suspected terrorism...The initial groups outlawed
were the IRA and the INLA in the United Kingdom and numerous Loyalist groups
within Northern Ireland...Exclusion orders could be issued "as expedient" to
prevent terrorism relating to Northern Ireland" Etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_(Temporary_Provisions)_Act_1989

Are you saying these acts never existed? OK, so I slipped up on the
"tanks" - they were armoured landrovers, apparently - and crowd control
isn't exactly the province of the SAS (though they were deployed), but the
basic point is that a small number of extremists in Northern Ireland
provoked panic in Britain, from the government down, and the question is
whether or not the same thing is happening in the Islamic world today.

Language is important. Distinctions between important concepts are
important. If people are to disagree then they need to know if they are
actually disagreeing or not.

I agree with you entirely. Can you then explain to me why it is that at
every turn you put words into my mouth and attribute views to me which I do
not actually hold?

For example:

You are an apologist for fascism

Anyone who actually knows me would laugh in your face. And again:

Your principles seem to be to stand by and do nothing in some kind
of pompous superiority.

I am not one to stand by and do nothing, and I do not personally hold any
individual or society inherently superior to any other. You are the one who
has consistently been trumpeting the superiority of the values of your own
society.

I think we have probably taken this discussion as far as it can profitably
go. I have been irritated by your straw man arguments, that have nothing to
do with anything I have said or believe, and for me the most interesting
point is one you appear not to grasp - that parts of the Islamic world have
voted, when given the chance, for Islamic fundamentalism and, if that is
equatable with extremism, then you are right. In those countries, at least,
extremism is mainstream.

It beats me how "liberating" them with democracy is going to change that,
though - all they'll do with it is vote for shariah and the clerics. If you
can offer a plausible explanation I'll be glad to hear it. Otherwise, as I
say, I think there's not much to be gained from further discussion.

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Campaigning is a Science, too.
    ... America was a place of hope for those ... most fair form of government. ... But does living in a democracy mean that only half can be happy at one ... ego to believe that his becoming president was his destiny. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: John McCains Space Program
    ... America has a large and powerful miltary, ... one govt after another caves to freedom and democracy. ... regional groupings of countries followed by a common code governing ... You're talking about ancient wars fought with a few thousand troops ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: John McCains Space Program
    ... America has a large and powerful miltary, ... There may be a democracy, of sorts, in Iraq but human rights ... regional groupings of countries followed by a common code governing ... is universally hostile to the Afghanistan war. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Campaigning is a Science, too.
    ... total departure from principles of democracy, ... Obama has had the backing of the Democratic ... The founding fathers had to include in our government an anti ... America, each person so employed, including the likes of: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Alberto N Jones: WILL JUSTICE BE DONE?
    ... an incredibly reduced charge of immigration violation against Luis ... string of terrorist crimes commited in their countries or against ... repressive governmental institutions in Central and South America, ... Government through Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)