What is Your Political Philosophy?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman


Thanks to nationalism, we have situation whereby the surface of the Earth could be turned into molten glass due to equipment malfunction. This is utterly unacceptable, and not something to be proud of.

Thanks to nationalism? Even the USSR and China, both internationalist counties, have nuclear weapons. This indicates that so long as you have disagreements in this world and no world government, people will be acquiring WMD to advance their agenda.

The Islamic fundamentalist al Qa'ida terrorist group wants nuclears weapons, for example. They are not nationalist by any sense of the imagination.

England's acquisition of nuclear weapons had a lot to do with the USSR's acquisition of them. They needed a deterent to protect itself from Stalin and crew. Is this nationalism at work? Hardly.

[Sandman]

Thanks to nationalism? Even the USSR and China, both internationalist counties, have nuclear weapons. This indicates that so long as you have disagreements in this world and no world government, people will be acquiring WMD to advance their agenda.

They're not internationalist in any serious sense. Both espoused nationalist doctrines, mingled with Marxism. Ever hear of 'socialism in one country', or 'the Great Patriotic War'?

Nationalism is handy if you want to convince sensible people to run into machine guns, or indeed overcome their natural aversion to killing. But it does more than help fight wars, it helps start them.

The Islamic fundamentalist al Qa'ida terrorist group wants nuclears weapons, for example. They are not nationalist by any sense of the imagination.

I never said that all nuclear weapons have to be owned by nationalists.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
The Islamic fundamentalist al Qa'ida terrorist group wants nuclears weapons, for example. They are not nationalist by any sense of the imagination.

England's acquisition of nuclear weapons had a lot to do with the USSR's acquisition of them. They needed a deterent to protect itself from Stalin and crew. Is this nationalism at work? Hardly.

There's an important difference here - the reason nations acquire nukes is to avoid nuclear blackmail. I would say even North Korea's acquisition is a valid one, if done for reasons of self preservation.

Organisations like al Queda want nukes because they want to use them. Clearly unacceptable.

Ideally, no one would have them. Since that is not the case, I prefer proliferation to non-proliferation. It may well prevent future wars. It's not pleasant to think of them all being used - but that isn't the reason they're made. They were made to prevent aggression - since the alternative is truly unacceptable.

A world without nukes would not be a safer one. Quite the reverse.

[Ned]

Cruddy, what you say makes some sense if you discount terrorist groups.

[Cruddy]

Ned, I've always been unhappy with the label "terrorist". To me it's just something to discredit the opposition with.

[Ned]

Cruddy, I am "sure" you feel exactly like that about the IRA and would have no qualms at all about their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

But, true, any revolutionary groups that simply fights a guerilla war without resort to terrorist acts should not be labelled as terrorists. I was thinking of the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan, whome the Russians problably believed were terrorists.

[Az]

I give you Bill Gates

was a rich man's son. His father had a couple of million bucks. Politicians- they don't matter. That's the effect of democracy, not capitalism.

[Cruddy]

Ned, you missed my point. ALL WAR IS AN ABOMINATION, BAD NEWS, HELL ON EARTH...

Your comparison between the IRA (heavily involved in peace talks at the minute) and the Mujihideen in Afghanistan is an interesting one.

You see, you are contrasting

a) the "uprising" against a legitimate response to the request of a sovereign state to help with insurgents - the Afghani side.

b) With the uncalled for and unwanted deployment of British troops to keep order - the Ulster side.

Read that paragraph again - the RUSSIAN side was "legitmate", in legal terms, and the British one wasn't!

Do I think the Russian decision was bad? Of course, and so did the majority of Afghani's (and an awful lot of Muslims).

Do I think the British decision was good? On balance, yes, and so did the majority of the people of Ulster. The alternative was to watch a slow decline into civil war in a neighbouring country.

To me, neither side of a conflict is "terrorist". Or maybe, all armed groups are "terrorist". Labelling just one side or the other ignores the fact that armed conflict is a place no sane human being wants to be.

For the record, I approved of the recent occupation of Iraq. For the simple reason that it gave us an end point to pull forces out of Kuwait and especially, Saudi Arabia. The latter removes maybe 70% of Al Qaeda's recruiting arguments.

Not because I thought it would be easy, or "justified", or because Hussein had WMD. He just had to go, so we wouldn't be sat on the border or patrolling the no fly zone for decades to come.

[Buck Birdseed]

Az: Granted the fact that children are born clean slates, who decides what to mould them into? Who decides what is a better way of thinking than another? For example, communist fraternalism is usually extremely hostile to female concerns, centering on promoting the virtues we've traditionally ascribed to males, thus making that strong group already stronger. Is that what communism is about? Combatting the weaker groups? That's what I mean is right-wing about your way of thinking.

Also, do you seriously think we'll ever be able to stop people from grouping together with those similar to themselves? Do you think we'll be able to erase sexes and races and sexualities as you want to erase cultures and classes?

Cruddy: I don't think direct democracy is going to help getting rid of the rule of the majority or the strong groups, unfortunately. Participatory democracy, formalised identity groupings working together pluralistically and an increased emphasis on diversity within liberal democracy is probably as close as we're going to get.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Cruddy: I don't think direct democracy is going to help getting rid of the rule of the majority or the strong groups, unfortunately. Participatory democracy, formalised identity groupings working together pluralistically and an increased emphasis on diversity within liberal democracy is probably as close as we're going to get.

Winston Churchill always thought of democracy as a stepping stone to a better form of govt. The quote is;

"Democracy is the very worst form of government. Apart from all the others, of course".

Suggest you read his books. They've not great reading, and they have no new answers - but you might be able to simplify some of your thinking after you have read them. You will know what are not the answers.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cruddy

For the record, I approved of the recent occupation of Iraq. For the simple reason that it gave us an end point to pull forces out of Kuwait and especially, Saudi Arabia. The latter removes maybe 70% of Al Qaeda's recruiting arguments.

Not because I thought it would be easy, or "justified", or because Hussein had WMD. He just had to go, so we wouldn't be sat on the border or patrolling the no fly zone for decades to come.

I am glad there is at least one other person on this forum (and indeed anywhere) who sees the problem that the US and the UK faced. I have argued the need to end the no fly zones and sanctions and to get out as justification for forcing a resolution of the WMD issue many times here.

The French and UN view that we could "take our time" with inspections and sanctions, even if that was forever, was simply not acceptable to the US and to the UK. While others have pointed out our occupation of Germany and our troops on the border in Korea were extended occupations of 40+ years, they were and are "peaceful." This simply is not the same thing as being heavily involved in low level combat for decades and perhaphs forever. Besides, during this entire period of time, the Iraqi people would have continued to suffer under a sanctions regime that would have prevented normal life even if Saddam was not the monster he was.

We needed to end it. We would have been glad to end it with full cooperation by Saddam. But it was he who chose the path of defiance instead.

But now, we can set up a new government, one that is hopefully better than the old, and leave Iraq and Kuwait before our presence causes even further "irritation."

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
But now, we can set up a new government, one that is hopefully better than the old, and leave Iraq and Kuwait before our presence causes even further "irritation."

Sorry Ned - only people with the power to do that are the UN security council. We signed the treaties and we should have read the small print.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
Cruddy, I am "sure" you feel exactly like that about the IRA and would have no qualms at all about their acquisition of nuclear weapons..

If the IRA had nukes, they wouldn't use them. If they did use them

a) They still don't get a United Ireland. What they would get is a United Britain very keen to retaliate.

b) They lose ALL their support from overseas sources.

c) They condemn their own cause to the history books.

I don't like the IRA, (strictly, Provisional IRA). But I don't think they are fools.