Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
He's perfectly correct in referencing things that happened outside your lifetime. We are the product of the past and as such must deal with the complications that come from our forefathers thinking for better or worse.

I don't have any cause with those bleeding hearts types but the rise of Islamism is a reaction to the socialist-nationalism that arose in the '50s and '60s. That nationalism was in turn a reaction to the collapse of the Ottoman order together with colonialism. That colonialism in turn is a result of mercantilism and security policies (Barbary Coast pirates).

While I believe that Husar is always too quick to blame Europe/USAs intervention in the middle east as the primary cause of it's problems his arguments are logical.
However, Europe's sphere has always extended to the whole Mediterranean basin, even the Roman's and Greeks saw it and it will always continue to be so. The European powers will meddle in the middle east when stronger just as those same countries have always strove to push their sphere into Europe when the situation allowed as well.

Liberal democracies reflect their societies, setting them up in countries who's societies are opposed to us will naturally result in a government reflecting that. I don't excuse the out reach of these democracies in the slightest, I think it's a shame the governments there must make such a concession to their ultra conservative wings to placate the religious extremists but that's always going to happen when poverty and insecurity reign.
I'm quite happy that the military is in charge of Egypt again even though that's extremely undemocratic of them. At the same time I'm happy that Tunisia is a democracy and is succeeding even if only precariously.

Youths will always be the most militant, they are the easiest to sway, they have the least world experience and have a desire for a cause to fight for. All those bleeding heart liberals are of the same cut, they want something to fight for and fighting the ruling class, the government or nations is always more appealing than 'conforming' to accept a less exciting narrative. Why else are conspiracy theories so popular, the allure of hidden knowledge and being part of the underdog is very appealing to most youths.

As for apologists, well a lot of them do have a point. I'm a patriot through and through but I can and do admit the wrongs of the present and past. It's not betrayal to admit wrong, it's not condemnation of your ancestors. I have family that fought for the Wehrmacht, am I ashamed? No, but I'm certainly not going to advocate that they should be especially proud either or white wash the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht. Same fore my US family, should I condemn my forefathers that fought the Indians/Native Americans in New England, no of course not. I'm not going to pretend however that they weren't the invaders either nor pardon their participating in the slave trade (they had a plantation in Jamaica too).

Point being that there are two sides to each issue, to dismiss the one you don't like just because is just as reckless as those that dismiss your opinion. The world is very very complicated, trying to oversimplify and blame/vilify just the Europeans/Americans or the Islamists is the same attitude the led the current situation.
Accepting cruel dictators will lead to backlash just as stoking religious/nationalism in a democracy does.
Husar once castigated Britain for what it was doing wrong in Syria. I then presented him with two models of foreign policy, both incidentally founded on liberalism, and asked him which he favours. He then ummed and aahed over how circumstances dictate what to do, sit on the fence, etc. Even after I explained to him that, post-WWI, one model was the default, to be assumed in the absence of any other bilateral/multilateral agreements. To accept one or the other model would, you see, deprive him of an avenue by which to criticise Britain for doing things wrong, as he's consistently done so using both models (intervention/non-intervention). Kage, unlike Husar, grasped the historical argument that is still the basis of international affairs today, and correspondingly accepted the logic of that argument.

The two models were as follows.

1. Self determination is the basis of all nations. A nation should choose its own government and form of government by itself, without outside interference. This has been the default since Woodrow Wilson in WWI.
2. Liberal democracy is the form to which all societies aspire to. Where dictatorships reign, this is against the natural order, and action should be taken to remove the dictatorship and transition into liberal democracy. This is the basis of neoconservatism, and has been discredited since Iraq.

So when a dictatorship is currently in power, what should Britain do? Should Britain take action against the dictatorship that it had some part in setting up generations before? Or should it leave alone?

Kage accepted that self-determination is indeed the basis of international affairs, and that deviations from such would be wrong. Husar recognised that accepting either model would deprive him of his correct conclusion, which is that Britain is in the wrong.

As for apologism: see Orwell's observation that they will frequently indulge in all kinds of double thinking in order to show that Anglo-America are in the wrong, and that their chosen movement is in the right. The very source of the term doublethink satirises this.