where are the lefties?
-
So turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues 120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician. Strange - but i don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefties (not referring to any CP members here) Can't quite fathom it. bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
So turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues 120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician. Strange - but i don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefties (not referring to any CP members here) Can't quite fathom it. bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
I cant quite fathom why you would hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from anyone over such an issue... Thats bloody gory dude. You bloody bloody body. -- modified at 1:11 Friday 19th October, 2007
-
So turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues 120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician. Strange - but i don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefties (not referring to any CP members here) Can't quite fathom it. bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
The Turkey thing was on the news last night but I've seen very little in the online media about it. They're pretty pissed at the septics at the moment, even recalled their ambasator from Washington. That could have something to do with it. I dont know why you'd expect to hear an outcry from the left, seems more like a good oportunity for the right to have a good winge about these bloody muslims
-
The Turkey thing was on the news last night but I've seen very little in the online media about it. They're pretty pissed at the septics at the moment, even recalled their ambasator from Washington. That could have something to do with it. I dont know why you'd expect to hear an outcry from the left, seems more like a good oportunity for the right to have a good winge about these bloody muslims
i'd have thought that the left would stand on their principles and jump up and down about troups entering iraq - though i wonder if they only do it because the USA etc are involved. But the moment an "eastern" or "non western" country is entering the fray its suddenly not their place to say anything...or something along those lines :) you get the drift i'm sure :) bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
So turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues 120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician. Strange - but i don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefties (not referring to any CP members here) Can't quite fathom it. bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
bryce wrote:
turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues
What could the lefties say except 'we told you that would happen' ?
bryce wrote:
120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician.
You don't read the press enough then.
Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
So turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues 120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician. Strange - but i don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefties (not referring to any CP members here) Can't quite fathom it. bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
It is of course very difficult for soft headed lefties, who generally don't believe in any kind of moral basis, to critisise anyone for merely doing something wrong or dangerous like invading Iraq. They can only critisise people for either doing something that has already had a bad result (hence why many were so quiet until the US invasion of Iraq had already gone wrong) or for being part of the majority opposed to some minority or other. Turkish nationalists are not yet felt by most lefties to be a majority, even though they probably are in Tukey, so there is nothing for the left to critisise yet. As soon as we get queues of Kurdish refugees and mutilated corpses on our television screen the Turks will no doubt be demon of the month. The same hyprocrisy we have already seen over every crisis from Abyssinia to Zimbabwe.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
It is of course very difficult for soft headed lefties, who generally don't believe in any kind of moral basis, to critisise anyone for merely doing something wrong or dangerous like invading Iraq. They can only critisise people for either doing something that has already had a bad result (hence why many were so quiet until the US invasion of Iraq had already gone wrong) or for being part of the majority opposed to some minority or other. Turkish nationalists are not yet felt by most lefties to be a majority, even though they probably are in Tukey, so there is nothing for the left to critisise yet. As soon as we get queues of Kurdish refugees and mutilated corpses on our television screen the Turks will no doubt be demon of the month. The same hyprocrisy we have already seen over every crisis from Abyssinia to Zimbabwe.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Many lefties have long been critical of Turkish treatment of the Kurdish minority, from the usual anti imperial angle. What the reaction will be when they are acting in opposition to the most evillest imperialists in the world will be interesting, given the enthusiasm many of the left have for the foulest and most reactionary regimes as long as they are seen to be opposing US interests.
-
So turkey wants to traipse merrily into Iraq to sort out a few issues 120+ people blown up in Pakistan after the return of a politician. Strange - but i don't hear much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the lefties (not referring to any CP members here) Can't quite fathom it. bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
Speaking as a lefty who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq long before it went sour ( as stated above ) and who has stated on this site that the reason that Kurdistan wouldn't be allowed to be made into an independent state as it would immeadiately be occupied by Turkey. I can't help but wonder why your trying to use a very dangerous situation to score nonsensical political points. Basically the Americans have led the world in invading or launching attacks on other countries in the name of stamping out terrorism ( cf Iraq and Pakistan ) As I understand it Turkey are now simply repeating the American arguments in the context of the Kurds and using the same logic to justify an attack. In reality your just pissed because they dare to so it in a territory that you feel you control if it was some country bordering Iran you'd be only too happy for the same scenario to be enacted. So good look with the political points scoring and the oh so convinient outrage.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
-
Many lefties have long been critical of Turkish treatment of the Kurdish minority, from the usual anti imperial angle. What the reaction will be when they are acting in opposition to the most evillest imperialists in the world will be interesting, given the enthusiasm many of the left have for the foulest and most reactionary regimes as long as they are seen to be opposing US interests.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Many lefties have long been critical of Turkish treatment of the Kurdish minority
Indeed, although very few have ever caused enough noise for anything to be done. The 'moral' left who critise abuses consistently are unfortunately a weak and barely audible minority. The British government which sold out the Kurds way back (1930s?) when they promised an independent Kurdistan and never delivered is ultimately to blame. Doesn't help much now though as we no longer have the necessary strength to correct that mistake.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
given the enthusiasm many of the left have for the foulest and most reactionary regimes as long as they are seen to be opposing US interests.
Noted, it bears an amazing similarity to the enthusiam of the right for b$$%&ds like Pinochet and Saddam and Pol Pot to name but a few as long as they took the 'right' side in the Cold War. In the end these worst elements of right and left are no different. Evil, hiding behind slogans and fake positions to align themselves with people they actually despise in order to distort the political process to their own ends. Only honesty and a refusal be associated with such people just because they claim the same politcial ground, can achieve change.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Many lefties have long been critical of Turkish treatment of the Kurdish minority
Indeed, although very few have ever caused enough noise for anything to be done. The 'moral' left who critise abuses consistently are unfortunately a weak and barely audible minority. The British government which sold out the Kurds way back (1930s?) when they promised an independent Kurdistan and never delivered is ultimately to blame. Doesn't help much now though as we no longer have the necessary strength to correct that mistake.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
given the enthusiasm many of the left have for the foulest and most reactionary regimes as long as they are seen to be opposing US interests.
Noted, it bears an amazing similarity to the enthusiam of the right for b$$%&ds like Pinochet and Saddam and Pol Pot to name but a few as long as they took the 'right' side in the Cold War. In the end these worst elements of right and left are no different. Evil, hiding behind slogans and fake positions to align themselves with people they actually despise in order to distort the political process to their own ends. Only honesty and a refusal be associated with such people just because they claim the same politcial ground, can achieve change.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and never delivered is ultimately to blame
Well, the Ottomans were kind of involved before that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Pinochet
Was the result of a stark choice between communism or economically right wing autocracy, an easy choice for any rational western foreign policy maker in the late 70s. Save the Pilger line about Chile becoming Sweden if it wasn't for the mean old CIA.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
took the 'right' side in the Cold War
You are seriously far gone enough to put 'right' in quotes in the context of the cold war? I think we can relegate you to the Chomsky corner, he's a libertarian, right?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Saddam
Western support for Saddam had fuck all to do with the cold war, and rather more to do with the Iranian Revolution, did you not notice his Soviet order of battle?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Pol Pot
? He was a Maoist, and the darling of the 'anti war' movement for a while until the stench of the corpses became too obvious.
-
Speaking as a lefty who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq long before it went sour ( as stated above ) and who has stated on this site that the reason that Kurdistan wouldn't be allowed to be made into an independent state as it would immeadiately be occupied by Turkey. I can't help but wonder why your trying to use a very dangerous situation to score nonsensical political points. Basically the Americans have led the world in invading or launching attacks on other countries in the name of stamping out terrorism ( cf Iraq and Pakistan ) As I understand it Turkey are now simply repeating the American arguments in the context of the Kurds and using the same logic to justify an attack. In reality your just pissed because they dare to so it in a territory that you feel you control if it was some country bordering Iran you'd be only too happy for the same scenario to be enacted. So good look with the political points scoring and the oh so convinient outrage.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
Speaking as a lefty
who, it would appear, fails to differentiate himself from the ammoral and hyprocritical left as referenced above. Doesn't do your cause any good.
pseudonym67 wrote:
if it was some country bordering Iran you'd be only too happy for the same scenario to be enacted.
Check your atlas my friend. It is a country bordering Iran! One of the biggest issues of Turkey going into Kurdistan is that Kurdistan extends into Iran, risking getting the Iranians involved if the Kurdish fighters flee from the Turkish forces into Iranian Kurdistan. Then you may have something to complain about.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and never delivered is ultimately to blame
Well, the Ottomans were kind of involved before that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Pinochet
Was the result of a stark choice between communism or economically right wing autocracy, an easy choice for any rational western foreign policy maker in the late 70s. Save the Pilger line about Chile becoming Sweden if it wasn't for the mean old CIA.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
took the 'right' side in the Cold War
You are seriously far gone enough to put 'right' in quotes in the context of the cold war? I think we can relegate you to the Chomsky corner, he's a libertarian, right?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Saddam
Western support for Saddam had fuck all to do with the cold war, and rather more to do with the Iranian Revolution, did you not notice his Soviet order of battle?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Pol Pot
? He was a Maoist, and the darling of the 'anti war' movement for a while until the stench of the corpses became too obvious.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Well, the Ottomans were kind of involved before that.
Indeed and now again it appears.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Was the result of a stark choice between communism or economically right wing autocracy
The choice to leave the choice to the people of Chile and not make that choice for them, thus becoming responsible for the mass-mudering result, is not one that would occur to you?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
You are seriously far gone enough to put 'right' in quotes in the context of the cold war
My point was that those in the right in the Cold War were not all necessarily what you would call polically right wing. You would probably consider me a lefty but I was never a Soviet apologist.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Western support for Saddam
Was of the same era as the Cold War, carried out by the same people who claimed to be anti-communist (Ronald Dumsfeld etc) while Saddam was spending your money on Russian tanks and was completely hyprocritical and unacceptable. Pol Pot...
Ryan Roberts wrote:
He was a Maoist, and the darling of the 'anti war' movement
Backed by Henry Kissenger and the amorral left at the same time. You make my point precisely.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Well, the Ottomans were kind of involved before that.
Indeed and now again it appears.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Was the result of a stark choice between communism or economically right wing autocracy
The choice to leave the choice to the people of Chile and not make that choice for them, thus becoming responsible for the mass-mudering result, is not one that would occur to you?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
You are seriously far gone enough to put 'right' in quotes in the context of the cold war
My point was that those in the right in the Cold War were not all necessarily what you would call polically right wing. You would probably consider me a lefty but I was never a Soviet apologist.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Western support for Saddam
Was of the same era as the Cold War, carried out by the same people who claimed to be anti-communist (Ronald Dumsfeld etc) while Saddam was spending your money on Russian tanks and was completely hyprocritical and unacceptable. Pol Pot...
Ryan Roberts wrote:
He was a Maoist, and the darling of the 'anti war' movement
Backed by Henry Kissenger and the amorral left at the same time. You make my point precisely.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The choice to leave the choice to the people of Chile and not make that choice for them
Both choices would have involved mass murder, and you make the assumption that the west was the only foreign influence. Single handedly withdrawing from the great game makes as little sense as unilateral disarmament.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
probably consider me a lefty
Nah, I've got you pegged on the crazy end of the libertarian spectrum. Which is mostly crazy in the first place :)
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Speaking as a lefty
who, it would appear, fails to differentiate himself from the ammoral and hyprocritical left as referenced above. Doesn't do your cause any good.
pseudonym67 wrote:
if it was some country bordering Iran you'd be only too happy for the same scenario to be enacted.
Check your atlas my friend. It is a country bordering Iran! One of the biggest issues of Turkey going into Kurdistan is that Kurdistan extends into Iran, risking getting the Iranians involved if the Kurdish fighters flee from the Turkish forces into Iranian Kurdistan. Then you may have something to complain about.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I don't have a cause and we'd be here all year if I could be bothered to even try to differentiate myself from everyone the people on this site disagree with. And once again thank you for completely failing to understand a simple reference. So as usual I'll have to give you the long winded explanation for a single sentence. What I was referring to is that if someone bordering Iran was talking about launching attacks in Iran to combat terrorism then with the majority of posters on this site would have no trouble with it. Whereas they do have trouble when it is applied to a country occupied by America. I was simply pointing out the selectiveness of their logic not referring to physical locations or actual events.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
-
I don't have a cause and we'd be here all year if I could be bothered to even try to differentiate myself from everyone the people on this site disagree with. And once again thank you for completely failing to understand a simple reference. So as usual I'll have to give you the long winded explanation for a single sentence. What I was referring to is that if someone bordering Iran was talking about launching attacks in Iran to combat terrorism then with the majority of posters on this site would have no trouble with it. Whereas they do have trouble when it is applied to a country occupied by America. I was simply pointing out the selectiveness of their logic not referring to physical locations or actual events.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
Selectiveness of logic is indeed a problem, or more accurately a symptom, on both right and left. The question is; are the gullible right wing who might support an incursion into Iran against 'terrorists' your real problem, or is it those who would actually perpetrate terrorism inside Iran in an attempt to destabalise a sovereign state. In case you think this is unlikely it has been done before by the US governement who brought down the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s using unambigously terrorist methods. My point to both Right and Left is that neither is the enemy. Each is being set up as a foil to the other by those who don't believe in anything except their own power.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Selectiveness of logic is indeed a problem, or more accurately a symptom, on both right and left. The question is; are the gullible right wing who might support an incursion into Iran against 'terrorists' your real problem, or is it those who would actually perpetrate terrorism inside Iran in an attempt to destabalise a sovereign state. In case you think this is unlikely it has been done before by the US governement who brought down the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s using unambigously terrorist methods. My point to both Right and Left is that neither is the enemy. Each is being set up as a foil to the other by those who don't believe in anything except their own power.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
"The question is; are the gullible right wing who might support an incursion into Iran against 'terrorists' your real problem, or is it those who would actually perpetrate terrorism inside Iran in an attempt to destabalise a sovereign state" Both. I know about the American overthrow of the elected government in Iran and the imposition of the Shah and it's support by Britain and amongst others and the rights support of Pol Pot despite arguments to the contrary on this site. "Each is being set up as a foil to the other by those who don't believe in anything except their own power." ( Konquerer wont quote properly ) No argument from me there.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The choice to leave the choice to the people of Chile and not make that choice for them
Both choices would have involved mass murder, and you make the assumption that the west was the only foreign influence. Single handedly withdrawing from the great game makes as little sense as unilateral disarmament.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
probably consider me a lefty
Nah, I've got you pegged on the crazy end of the libertarian spectrum. Which is mostly crazy in the first place :)
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Both choices would have involved mass murder, and you make the assumption that the west was the only foreign influence. Single handedly withdrawing from the great game makes as little sense as unilateral disarmament.
Those who show more willingness to get their hands dirty (becoming responsible for mass murder) than to take responsibility for their actions are not acting out of some noble sense of higher purpose. Though they may hide behind the expensively bought impression of one. The great game itself is an immoral concept. The fact that you still apparently believe that Soviet domination was possible in far flung Chile shows just how far you were taken in at the time. You probably still belive that the Soviets were trying to take over Angola and that justified arming UNITA, the private army of a madman, for decades and at the cost of 100's of thousands of lives as well. Mr McCarthy and friends sure did mess with your minds.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Nah, I've got you pegged on the crazy end of the libertarian spectrum.
Funny that, when the Conservatives here accuse me of being a right wing extremist. It would make me laugh if it wasn't all such nonsense.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I don't have a cause and we'd be here all year if I could be bothered to even try to differentiate myself from everyone the people on this site disagree with. And once again thank you for completely failing to understand a simple reference. So as usual I'll have to give you the long winded explanation for a single sentence. What I was referring to is that if someone bordering Iran was talking about launching attacks in Iran to combat terrorism then with the majority of posters on this site would have no trouble with it. Whereas they do have trouble when it is applied to a country occupied by America. I was simply pointing out the selectiveness of their logic not referring to physical locations or actual events.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
Whereas they do have trouble when it is applied to a country occupied by America.
I don't. If Turkey has a legitimate case that they are under attack from a neighbor, than they should be allowed to defend themselves. Obviously, that raises the possibility of a confrontation between Turk and US forces as the US would necessarily have to defend against a general invasion from Turkey, but as long as the objectives were narrowly defined, they should be allowed to do it. Frankly, I think there should be a new international law - any act of terrorism from the citizens of one nation against the citizens of another can be considered an act of war regardless of whether the government of the nation producing the terrorism was directly responsible for it or not. Further, all members of the UN would be required to participate militarily in the invasion of any nation producing terrorism. The excuse of 'stateless' terrorism should be made legally moot. If they are your citizens than you need to control them. Otherwise, the international community will. -- modified at 8:05 Friday 19th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Both choices would have involved mass murder, and you make the assumption that the west was the only foreign influence. Single handedly withdrawing from the great game makes as little sense as unilateral disarmament.
Those who show more willingness to get their hands dirty (becoming responsible for mass murder) than to take responsibility for their actions are not acting out of some noble sense of higher purpose. Though they may hide behind the expensively bought impression of one. The great game itself is an immoral concept. The fact that you still apparently believe that Soviet domination was possible in far flung Chile shows just how far you were taken in at the time. You probably still belive that the Soviets were trying to take over Angola and that justified arming UNITA, the private army of a madman, for decades and at the cost of 100's of thousands of lives as well. Mr McCarthy and friends sure did mess with your minds.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Nah, I've got you pegged on the crazy end of the libertarian spectrum.
Funny that, when the Conservatives here accuse me of being a right wing extremist. It would make me laugh if it wasn't all such nonsense.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The great game itself is an immoral concept.
Yet unavoidable in a world of conflicting nation states. That you think otherwise seems to conflict with your anti globalist agenda.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Soviet domination
Influence, and yes it was possible. As possible as American hegemony.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Mr McCarthy and friends
Were rather more correct than commonly realised, given the evidence of recently declassified transcripts[^]. Keeping Soviet sympathisers and paid agents out of government organisations was a laudable goal, keeping them out of Hollywood and academia rather less so.
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Whereas they do have trouble when it is applied to a country occupied by America.
I don't. If Turkey has a legitimate case that they are under attack from a neighbor, than they should be allowed to defend themselves. Obviously, that raises the possibility of a confrontation between Turk and US forces as the US would necessarily have to defend against a general invasion from Turkey, but as long as the objectives were narrowly defined, they should be allowed to do it. Frankly, I think there should be a new international law - any act of terrorism from the citizens of one nation against the citizens of another can be considered an act of war regardless of whether the government of the nation producing the terrorism was directly responsible for it or not. Further, all members of the UN would be required to participate militarily in the invasion of any nation producing terrorism. The excuse of 'stateless' terrorism should be made legally moot. If they are your citizens than you need to control them. Otherwise, the international community will. -- modified at 8:05 Friday 19th October, 2007
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Interesting concept. So the General Assembly of the UN would be able to send US troops back into Mogadishu against the will of the US governement to stop Somalia from exporting its chaos to the neigbouring countries. Hmm somehow I think US withdrawl from the UN and a unilateral declaration of war against the entire world would be more likely. Nice to know that you're a supporter of world government though. I'll watch out for you in future.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.