The Left's False Narrative

[Red Harvest]

Democracy can be traced to the Fifth Century B.C.

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.

Science is a product of the Seventeenth Century. It has no prior correlate.

Recent scientific method is oversold. There were scientific communities well before the 17th Century in various fields. People tested various facets of the world arround them, proposed explanations, and recorded the information. Agriculture and animal husbandry have been with us for many thousands of years. You would be hard pressed to claim there was not scientific method involved throughout. The development of siege technology in Assyria and again later in Syracuse are further examples of science in action.

Why is modern science oversold? Because people fail to recognize that so many incremental advances in so many areas were needed to finally bring us to this point. We now have the interconnection and media to distribute the learnings, and not to forget them so easily. They are not lost by a single conquest or destruction of a nation or library or regime. Before the scientific communities were smaller, travel and communication were far more limited, literacy was far lower, and the media of recording, retaining, and distributing works was meager.

If you want an idea what happens when a community of the learned is too small, look at Tasmania. From what I understand the original Tasmanians had decent aboriginal technology when they walked across the land bridge. When this land bridge was covered by water their simple technologies to even things like fishing and clothing regressed. Without some interchange with a larger community, things were slowly lost.

Civil liberties date from the Eighteenth Century.

So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...

A cultural-parity approach seems only tenable for those who haven't spent time outside of the Western cultural loop.

You sound like VDH... I've spent time working in Asia and can appreciate differences of several Asian societies, and I reject VDH's drivel.

Singapore's model is interesting. I'm not sure that I fully understand it but I can recognize some things about it from my time there. China seems to be emulating it as a way to catch up. One might even argue that Singapore's approach is closer to a capitalism/market based govt than any Western govt. which tend to be more bound more by the contraints of individual liberty and property rights (I prefer our way, but theirs seems to work for them so it is worth trying to understand why.)

[Azi Tohak]

Sorry, check lower.

[Azi Tohak]

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

[Redleg]

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

You can only have so many characters before the document will not post. THat might be it.

[Red Harvest]

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

Certain character combinations get rejected as some sort of HTML code. Watch out for "=" and < or > characters together. It will clip them, but they will still be there when you edit so you can identify the problem piece.

Quoting sections use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (minus the spaces sandwiching what you want in between.)

[Azi Tohak]

Sorry, check lower

[econ21]

“Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.”

Let me see:

X number of terrorists – 1 dead terrorist (or imprisoned too) = fewer terrorists right?

Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.

[Hurin_Rules]

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.

Its actually even worse than that Red. If you look to the real roots (as opposed to seeds) of democratic systems in the West, they lie in the Middle Ages, not in ancient Greece. Yes, we know all about Solon and Pesistratus and Cleisthenes, but the people who constructed the first representative governments in the West did not. Whence did the first parliaments arise? Edward Longshanks had never heard of Solon.

Several more mundane and realistic sources for the parliaments can be found in the high middle Ages. One source was the Church itself. The idea of elective represenation can be found in the Reform movement of the eleventh century, which began to push for free elections of bishops from the local clergy. Since the bishop of Rome was included in all this, this gave us the modern system of election by the cardinals. Another source was the germanic traditions of local assemblies (placita, in Latin) and rule by community consensus. These ideas stretched far back into the pre literate past of the germanic peoples, and probably predate the coming of the Greeks to Greece. The Rhine and Danube did far more for democracy in Western Europe than Plato or Aristotle ever did. The Germanic warriors expected to be treated as free men and to choose their own military leaders. Finally, we can also see the beginings of communal republicanism in the Italian city states of the eleventh century. But were the men of the communes reading Solon? No. Even if they had had access to ancient Greek texts, Plato was no lover of democracy. No, the roots of representative government in the West--the English parliament, the French Estates General, the cortes of the Iberian kingdoms, the communes of Flanders and Lombardy--lie in much different soil.

Assuming the cultural superiority of the Greeks becomes harder and harder to maintain when one realizes the real roots of modern democracy.

And assuming the cultural superiority of ANYONE inevitably leads us down a slippery slope towards racism, imperialism and the unmitigated horrors of the last century. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And assuming the cultural superiority of ANYONE inevitably leads us down a slippery slope towards racism, imperialism and the unmitigated horrors of the last century. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

Ill have to put this away for the next time some Euro tries to claim cultural superiorty of us uncultivated Americans. How many times have we heard that?

[Azi Tohak]

Well, the first thing I can say is that I wish I knew how to quote, but I'll just have to thank Red Harvest for these points as I copy and paste:

"The Right's first shackle is intellectual dishonesty."

In what exactly? I really do wish the White House would admit they were wrong about Iraq, about how it is going to take a long time, but what else do you want them to admit to?


"Its second shackle is intolerance. Treating the war on terror as a religious crusade is a mistake of the 1st order."

Damned skippy! I will not stand by and let some religious nut bags attack my country for whatever specious reasons they have adopted this month. But by the same token, this is not a war against Islam. If it was, wouldn't you think we would have imported some of our own wonderful Jehovah’s Witnesses to convert the Muslims of Iraq? No, the government does not want a puppet state, they want a beacon for the rest of the middle east to rally around. And the war is a crusade, as defined by dictionary.com:

cru•sade
n.
often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.

Yup, this is most definitely a crusade. Time to rid the world of nutbag Muslim extremists. And I will not tolerate their views that the US government is responsible for the way the world it is today. As fashionable as that is, to blame the US, couldn't France or China have helped out the poor, put-out Muslims that were constantly oppressed by the US? Sure. Did they?


"Its third shackle is believing nobody to the Left of Dubya could fight a war, or do it better. History proves otherwise. And when the history of the present is written, people are going to be looking back saying "WTF?""

Oh yes, (democrat) FDR did great fighting the war didn't he? All he did was allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and not tell any of the 3000 dead (in one morning remember, the left is going ape we have lost 1700 in how many months now?) they were going to get a nasty surprise. FDR allowed Stalin to take half of Europe, and that half is still paying for what happened. Did FDR do the right think? I'm in no position to judge. The best thing he did during the war was keep the people on the home front supportive of it, while staying the heck out of Marshall's way. But remember, the media during the war, with a democrat president in office, was not howling over every dead solider the way our media loves to do, to put as horrible light as possible on Bush and the Republican party.

Then of course there is LBJ. He did brilliantly didn't he? I've got no more to say on him.

Lincoln was a Republican wasn't he? And it was the Democrats who wanted to keep slaves...ahh yes..

Then there is Woodrow Wilson, who refused to get involved in a war until his allies had effectively won it for him (wow…so THAT is where France gets it’s current foreign policy form…).

Seems to me HISTORY has proven that the left, which for some reason has been in power during most of our major wars, has avoided getting involved until our interests were threatened. No chance of (like Lincoln and Bush) starting a war for what is right is there? Nope, we are perfectly content in our moral relativism.


“Its fourth shackle is mistaking its view for moral/religious righteousness--i.e. never being able to admit a mistake.”

A. Has the left ever said “Oops we did it again”?
B. You know as well as I do that to admit a mistake is to cut your own foot off in the next election. Speaking of elections, has the Democratic Party ever apologized for Kerry as their choice? Hell, “Anybody but Bush” should have worked great. Was Kerry really the best choice?
C. Yes, I will agree there is too much religious influence in the Republican party. But the good news is, because of that, people know where Republicans STAND, as opposed to Democrats, who do whatever they think will keep them in power longer (i.e. Kerry, Clinton, LBJ, Carter). I say too much only because I disagree with the party on some big issues.

continue to part II

[Azi Tohak]

“Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.”

Let me see:

X number of terrorists – 1 dead terrorist (or imprisoned too) = fewer terrorists right?

But I might have to get someone from Harvard, Yale (you know, the Ivy league schools, the only places where smrt people come from, just ask the Democratic Parties leadership about THAT one) to prove that one for your satisfaction.

What else…ooo…more money in the hands of people means more money flowing through the economy right? Unless the people are too scared to invest because the media keeps telling them the sky is falling (which only happened under Bush, therefore it was Bush’s fault right?).

Oh, and here is another one:

National Tax Income – Democrat policies intended to keep them in favor = less money for body armor and APCs right?

I love how the media tries to blame Bush for that too. No. It is Democrats who want to cut military spending (except when it suits them and they have enough publicity) and pay for other pandering projects. Republicans want to increase military funding, at the expense of the pandering projects. But people like being pandered to (see FDR), so the constant increases in pork-barrel projects just hurt the military. I think that is pretty simple math.

Being an engineer, I might be able to do some math. Care to give me any? Mind, this has to be simple math, like how many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb.


“From the book I quickly concluded the guy has a serious Western superiority complex that seriously erodes the quality of his writing. It has that stench of colonial racial superiority.”

Ah yes…and racial superiority is only held by white males, who happen to go to church and stay married to their wives right? China is so wonderfully open and friendly! Just ask Tibet. I hear it is lovely in the winter when Chinese tanks go home. Or Japan? Isn’t gaijin an insult there?

I think that covers what I wanted to say about Red’s points.

And why am I reminded of Wasabi’s signature?

Azi

Sorry about the multiple posts, but the computer was having troubles with some math symbols.

[Kanamori]

I'm just surprised to see Pindar start such a qualitative thread

[bmolsson]

Ive read several times people talk about how the US is bad for making a value judgement about democracy over dictatorships in regards to the Iraq war.

I don't see the imaginatory WMD's has anything what so ever to do with democracy. Could you please elaborate ??

[bmolsson]

Why is modern science oversold?

It has lost it's objectivity.

Singapore's model is interesting.

Singapore is a feodal state, disquised as a democracy......

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't see the imaginatory WMD's has anything what so ever to do with democracy.

I dont either.

[PanzerJaeger]

Really? I can see a few ways that the "WMD" issue pertains to democracy. The United States, being a Democracy of sorts, relies on a majority rules within congress before you can declare war. Bush cheated the system by lying about WMDs (as the Downing Street Memo shows, he was in fact lying and he knew it), thus undermining democracy.

Hijacking two threads in one night.. You'd make the terrorists you sympathize with proud.

America did not declare war on Iraq, just as it didnt in '96 or '91. The precident of undeclared war was set many decades ago, and for you to use that against President Bush while ignoring the fact that 5 generations of presidents before him used it shows your bias... and it has been noted.

And what exactly was the Downing Street Memo besides one mans opinion? And how is removing a dictatorship and replacing it with a democracy in fact undermining democracy?

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar

Democracy is traditionally tied to a larger political ethos.

This 'tradition' is the very Eurocentric historiography in question. To defend Hanson by referring to it is circular.

I don't think this post really responds to what I wrote. I don't understand why you have tradition in scare quotes. If you are trying to argue that democracy was developed independent of the West and was a well placed notion in the intellectual discourse of other Civilizations: it was not so.

This is why for example school texts in Japan or China reference the West when discussing the source of democracy.

This ethos involves a theoretical strata that defines roles of the state vis-a-vis citizenry. Tribes holding council or friends deciding together what movie to go see may certainly include a consensus, but do not meet the larger standard of civilization.



Ah, I see. So the West is now the arbiter of civilization? Good for it.

This reply doesn't seem properly placed either. Concepts have certain base meanings. Democracy is a construct of the Greeks. The word gained its meaning within that milieu. Again referencing the Far East: this is why in Chinese or Japanese the word for democracy is a transplant from the West because no such notion existed prior to contact with the West.

Science is a theoretical position.

So is the Western superiority complex.

What's the point to this comment? Are you wanting to argue that science is not theoretical. Are you wanting to argue the West is not superior? If so, I have given three basic reasons for arguing the West is superior. Civil liberties is one of those examples. Now if you wish to argue that a civilization that has no civil liberties tradition is morally equivalent to the West make your case. Comments like the above will not do.

If you want to rule out all documents enacted by royal decree from your definition of civil liberties, then you're going to have to ignore most of the history of civil liberties.

Not really. The standard history of civil liberties finds theoretical impetus in the works of ST. Thomas and then is given more formal structure in the 16th Century by those thinkers that were setting up challenges to the Divine Right of Kings (the exact opposite to royal mandate as justification). Legislative action and formalization also occurred outside of monarchy, as seen in the formation of the Bill of Rights (18th Century). So, the history, as it were, doesn't usually appeal to any Kingly mandate.

Modern civil liberties discourses, perhaps; but I thought we were talking about origins?

See above.

The origin isn't really pertinent to my position as the discussion remains an intra-West affair. This is what is significant..

You keep making arguments along the lines of 'this is usually done this way' or 'traditionally, this is what has been done'. Well, slavery was a 'traditional part of western culture for millenia, and racism is a usual foundation for intolerance. Custom and authority are not arguments.

Yes slavery and racism were part of the West. This is also the case in all other Civilizations. Unfortunately many areas continue to follow oppressive traditions along these lines: India's untouchables for example.

There is no appeal to authority.

Enough to know that intolerance springs from ignorance.

But not enough to know real and critical distinctions exists between peoples, places and cultures.

Actually, it is far more of an argument than anything your post provided, which relied on a circular appeal to Eurocentrist historiography and the ponderous weight of unthinking tradition. I, on the other hand, referred to the US governments own study that showed that the amorphous explanation 'they hate freedom' was simply wrong. Most people like America; its the policies of its government they hate. That and all those invasion thingys.

If we take your prior post as an attempt at a serious position there is a problem: the initial article is focused on the divisions within the Western camp, not cross-Civilization comparisons per say.

Thanks, I'm glad someone noticed.

Always happy to give credit where it is due.

[Red Harvest]

Azi Tohak,

There isn't much you have said that I can agree with or that facts support.

Intellectual Dishonesty. It's about being honest with oneself as well as with others.

Explain the term "compassionate conservative." Explain WMD, explain why the budget has been so badly hosed by the party controlling the house/senate and presidency. Explain why the numbers never add up on anything Bush proposes. Explain reprimanding analysts because they give ACCURATE assessments which don't fit the party line. Explain the media bias screams and efforts to suppress the media. Explain politicizing international trade group appointments that were non-political before.

Intolerance

This is a firm plank in the stance of the Right. You can see it whenever abortion comes up, gays, prayer in schools, etc. Intolerance is an unfortunate aspect of the religious right. When people start screaming "liberal" in their best McCarthy-esque tone, you are witnessing intolerance. Even the Air Force Academy is having problems fighting religious intolerance. It is not to our country's credit. Bush has called the Afghan and other fights "crusades" in speeches to Muslims for crying out loud. How damned stupid can he get? It implies a Christian attack against Muslims. A crusade is a religious war, he might as well call it a friggin' jihad. I've heard that in Arabic crusader translates along the lines of "follower of the cross." The fight against terrorism does not and should not be narrowed down to a religious war. It is wider than that, because it is not religious specific. It is terrorism vs. everyone else, regardless of race, creed, or religion.

The wars issue.

Dubya is not being held accountable for his screw ups, and they are huge and of his own making.

FDR did what he could to keep the UK afloat while the US was isolationist. And if you read up on the fight in the Pacific, the local commanders were at fault at Pearl--and especially the Phillipines where the Japanese couldn't believe that the commanders had not done anything to prepare after the attack at Pearl. Unlike Dubya, FDR didn't have the Cole bombing or embassy attacks as a warning before Pearl Harbor. Dubya was disinterested in Al Qaeda until 9/11. He has since failed to get the top targets in Afghanistan and has left it smoldering rather than doing what was needed to get back on its feet. In Iraq he failed to prepare for the post war situation. As a result we have all these post "Mission Accomplished" casualties, and a badly unsettled mess.

As for post war and Stalin, nobody had much choice other than to acceot the Soviets in Eastern Europe or follow up WWII with a protracted fight against the USSR. Truman checked the Soviet plans by dropping the bomb on Japan, sending the right message to the USSR. We had a weapon they couldn't easily contend with, and we weren't afraid to use it.

LBJ? Shall we mention Ike? Didn't he get the ball rolling in Vietnam by helping to create the initial South Vietnamese regime? LBJ, for all his flaws inherited a fight that had no clear path to victory. Short of directly subduing North Vietnam, there was none.

Lincoln? The right wingers here hate him! LOL. He would be a liberal by their definitions. The Republican party changed back with Teddy Roosevelt, it hasn't been the party of Lincoln since then, except in name. Since then the Democrats and Republicans have swapped ends for the most part.

Fourth point You really didn't have anything there to discuss...

Math

I'm an engineer and I can tell you that the GOP and this admin are having real trouble with math. So are the conservative engineers I've worked with. Those engineers can't seem to do the math on energy issues and they are having real trouble projecting trends. I won't go into the creative accounting I've corrected... They are too steeped in dogma with the rosey glasses, and they can't get out of the danged box. Yep, I've fought this fight from within the industry, and their numbers don't add up. Why? Intellectual dishonesty for the most part. They don't want to believe a number, so they ignore it. There is also a tendency to give the "expected answer" rather than what the numbers are telling them. You take some awful heat when you fail to give the answer that the execs want--just like with Dubya's admin. When the GOP said they want to run the country like a business, they weren't kiddin'.

Has Dubya published any plan or budget figures yet that have turned out to be true? He's only a couple trillion short at the moment--and no, he won't get a pass for 9/11. The concern about contingencies for emergencies was dismissed by the GOP while pushing his budget wrecking plans. And what was the answer AFTER 9/11. "That wasn't, enough, let's do more!" Supply side economics were already proven false in the Reagan era. And revenue numbers have not worked any of his forecasted magic.

How about how many troops we will need in Iraq, how much it will cost, casualties, etc? Buy Dubya a friggin' calculator and a few hundred hours of training on how to use it (trust me, it WILL take him that long to believe the numbers coming out of it.)

The GOP economic theories would never work for economic justification on my projects. (And their energy policies/assumptions are a hindrance to good investment in industry but just what the industry wants to hear.)

Ditto for the Social Security accounts proposals...the numbers don't work, and the assumptions are as bad as those used for Dubya's tax cut & spend policy.

You want more fun with numbers? Take an honest look at the proposals for national sales tax vs. income tax. Never mind that it would send the economy into a massive recession, it would also be a large tax increase for much of the scale.

Your rant about China and Tibet Not sure what you are even going on about since my views on China are anything but trusting or forgiving. You have your guns pointed in the wrong direction. However, that doesn't blind me to seeing VDH's book is fairly thinly veiled Eurocentric cheerleading. Like Dubya, he appears to have reached a conclusion, then decided to write an argument (book) to support it.

[Red Harvest]

Singapore is a feodal state, disquised as a democracy......

I wouldn't call it feudal, since the workers are doing quite well, and so is business. No serfs ever had it that good. How the govt. operates is a mystery to me although I know political dissent is not well tolerated. The closest I can come up with is Sim City: the Country.

Selamat tidur.

[Pindar]

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

Hurin challenged the idea of democracy's origins. Your "duh" is misplaced.


Yes the Athenian experiment failed. The idea of democracy did not disappear however. It survived and revived with the return of Classical knowledge. Though typically rejected as akin to mobocracy the notion persisted. Regardless, the ultimate reformation of democratic norm occurred in the West.

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.

This is an appeal to ignorance. The historical record is based on evidence. The evidence of democracy in the West is clear. If there is no evidence of a democratic superstructure with other civilizations one cannot conclude it existed.

Recent scientific method is oversold. There were scientific communities well before the 17th Century in various fields. People tested various facets of the world arround them, proposed explanations, and recorded the information. Agriculture and animal husbandry have been with us for many thousands of years. You would be hard pressed to claim there was not scientific method involved throughout. The development of siege technology in Assyria and again later in Syracuse are further examples of science in action.

Science is a specific theoretical posture. It is composed of clear principles: physical data, inductive logic, notions of symmetry, verification etc. It can be traced to two specific individuals: Descartes and Bacon. This does not mean people did not learn or study prior to the 17th Century. It does mean that the formal system we call science was not a distinct method.

So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...

This is also an appeal to ignorance.

You sound like VDH... I've spent time working in Asia and can appreciate differences of several Asian societies, and I reject VDH's drivel.

Singapore's model is interesting. I'm not sure that I fully understand it but I can recognize some things about it from my time there. China seems to be emulating it as a way to catch up. One might even argue that Singapore's approach is closer to a capitalism/market based govt than any Western govt. which tend to be more bound more by the contraints of individual liberty and property rights (I prefer our way, but theirs seems to work for them so it is worth trying to understand why.)

Singapore was a British Colony. Its distinctive status and infrastructure are a reflection of this history. Capitalism is a Western construct. Lee's rhetoric and the reality are not necessarily the same.

[Pindar]

I'm just surprised to see Pindar start such a qualitative thread

Yeah, what's with him anyway?

[Red Harvest]

This is an appeal to ignorance.

No, it is rejection of theoretical speculation (itself based on ignorance) that is being used as bigoted cheerleading by Hanson. I fail to see any value in his Western Way of War thesis. There is no deeper understanding coming from it. In fact, I felt his treatment of certain aspects was superficial (and in cases factually incorrect.) It read more like trying to spin the history to fit the thesis. That is one reason I find his current essay so ironic.

[Pindar]

RedHarvest: So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...

Me: This is an appeal to ignorance.

No, it is rejection of theoretical speculation (itself based on ignorance) that is being used as bigoted cheerleading by Hanson. I fail to see any value in his Western Way of War thesis. There is no deeper understanding coming from it. In fact, I felt his treatment of certain aspects was superficial (and in cases factually incorrect.) It read more like trying to spin the history to fit the thesis. That is one reason I find his current essay so ironic.

The rise of democracy is not theoretical speculation. There is a well established textual tradition that dates from the 5th Century B.C. dealing with the subject. The same cannot be said of other Civilizations.

As far as VDH's theory of the "Western Way of War" that book is beyond the scope of this thread. The focus of this thread is the left/right dichotomy regarding the war on terror.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.

Kill/Capture them faster than they can recruit them!

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I can't believe this thread keeps going



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.

So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.

And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...

I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose? Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...
If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.

As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.

Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture
Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?


Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?

Who are you kidding?

Louis,

[Redleg]

I can't believe this thread keeps going



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.

Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?

So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.

Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.

And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...

Selective Facts - can also be said of many left-wing mythology and information.

I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose?

Yes indeed a nice selective bent by the baised author of this article - however again the author wanted to make a point.

Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...

Not really - given that some are soft on Terror in the eyes of the author.

If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.

Again not really - it would of made it harder for him to prove, it would require a longer article, it would of required doing a better journalistic job.

As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.

Yep - and to say anything different would be intellectually dishonest.

Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture
Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?

Again not all lefties want the war in Afganstan either. You accuse the author of intectual dishonesty and demonstrate it yourself. A little hypocrisy on your part - or like the auther are you attempting to strike a point?

Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?

And in that I would agree with you. Mr Hanson went to far in his opinion - but he is a pundit, just like another individual who is being discussed in a seperate thread.

Who are you kidding?

Louis,

Maybe ourselves - to include everyone.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?

Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.

I'd like to answer that part separately.

It's obvious that at least we enjoy the benefit of science, democracy, and civil liberties for ourselves.We did accomplish that. We did err quite a lot on the way even in our own countries (WWI horrors, WWII crime against humanity). We did nothing for others.

Our shortcomings, multiple betrayals of those values, our failings as you name them shall at least stop us from lecturing others about it.

I find it a bit "rich" (French expression, not sure it translates well), to tell others what they shall do when we had the power to do it earlier, and screwed up for them.
I mean, if as a French, I was to lecture Algeria for its lack of democracy, chances are Algerians would get a bit upset: we owned the country, were big mouth about democracy and La Grandeur de la République, never gave it to them, and repressed them when they ask for higher representation, then later independance.
Or picture a Brit lecturing an American about taxation and representation

Can you claim superiority for something you're not doing?

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

On the text itself.

Sure, some lefties were against the war in Afghanistan. And many more were for it.
In France, the socialist party supported it. I am not sure there were an official stance about that from the Communist party; they had lot of mixed feeling.
Most of the democrats supported the war in Afghanistan... and a fringe did not.
That hardly fits with the mention by the author that "only about half of the West is involved"

Oddly enough, in the run up to the war against Iraq, when 80%+ of the French were against it, you would have found 2 groups supporting it:
- what we call "liberals": libertarian in the US. Usually pro US on any stance.
- left wing interventionist: willing to remove Saddam for his numerous human right related crimes. Those are very pro ICC, pro UN kind of interventionist and believe that in case of human right grave violation other countries got a duty to intervene. Removing Saddam was OK for them. Blair, when he was not talking about the "imminent threat" of WMD (ah! ah! ah!) sounded much like them.

Mr. Hinson ignored that many on the left are not pacifist, and supported the war against Afghanistan. Many democrats also supported the war against Iraq, and so did other Euro lefties.
When Mr Hinson hand pick the facts so that they fit his theory, he is not doing a good job as a newswriter, he's just being dishonest and biased.
It's helpfull to put up the other facts, the one that Mr Hinson purposely ignored, just to debunk his theory.

Is there a 5% frindge on the left who are die hard pacifist and complete morale relativist? Probably. Is it fair to paint the left like that? Certainly not.

Louis,

[Al Khalifah]

I think very few sane people can genuinely believe that the world - both as whole and for the citizens of the involved countries - would have been a better place had the Taliban remained in power in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On that point I think absolutely everyone can agree.

Where the issue lies here, however, is not in the ends, but in the means. It seems highly inappropriate that we should shout the praises of democracy to these recently liberated nations. The underlying principle of democracy is consensus not conflict, words not weapons and the maintainance of human-rights and civil liberties.

Our 'superiority complex' must surely be challenged by the fact that in the War on Terror we have failed in each of these aspects.

The U.N failed because it could not secure a consensus about the war or indeed whether the operation was even legal. The Coalition seemed too eager to commit to military action rather than pursue alternative methods and once in control of Iraq has continued an approach of "don't be a terrorist or we'll kill you." Finally, the treatment of prisoners and detainees is in total violation of their human rights and the legislation planned to combat terror makes terrible in-roads to our civil liberties.

Arguably the West is superior at the moment, but if we continue to behave in this way, we will not be able to claim such superiority for long.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Arguably the West is superior at the moment, but if we continue to behave in this way, we will not be able to claim such superiority for long.

And I argue that if we dont get tougher and treat this seriously as the war it really is we will not be able to claim such superiority for long. Again you need security first before you can have freedom. Thats why were still in Iraq.