Democracy and freedom of determination

bonkey

After WWMs thread on how we're stuck in a rut, I wasnt gonna post this, but I cant resist

From

Mr Straw has said previously there can be no place for hard core Taliban in a replacement administration

So much for democracy and freedom of choice. I mean...isnt Jacky-boy basically saying :

"You can choose whatever leadership you want, as long as its one we approve of"

or

"It doesnt matter how many people would vote for the Taliban in an election, you still cant have them."

Nice to see that democracy is so openminded in the west.

Uh-oh. I'm gonna get branded as Anti-British now, arent I? Woohoo. Maybe I should start a collection

jc

Boston

i can think of worse things to be branded.

Anyway, ive allways wondered why people feel the need to talk about how messed up the english goverment is.
you swear that it surprises some people.

mike65

Boston,

What do you expect with a bunch of champagne socialists in
charge!, btw before having a go at the British gov take a look
at your own back yard, how many tribuinals are running at the mo, CJH, corrupt Donegal gardai, the list is endless!

Mike.

Chaos-Engine

humm

The Irish government TOLD RTE to refare to the Taliban as Terrorists... They told RTE also to call Osama Bin Laiden a Terrorist and not a dissident...

Frankly I can only see one idolical difference between Eamon De Valera and Osama Bin Laiden..

Dev faught direct Imperialism and
Osama is Fighting Indirect imperialism

Red Moose

Hitler also was fighting such "imperialist" government - that's how the Nationalist Socialist (or "Nazi" as it became known as) party became so powerful, as he was fighting against massive economic and social problems in post-WW 1 Germany.

It took what, 6 years and millions dead to see that a lot of the time those fighting to "liberate" their country and really trying to simply control the population, getting all power crazy.

The result of De Valera was a mostly free democratic Ireland - you can pissed drunk when you want and yell out that the government is a load of **** whenever you want. That is real freedom. You won't be executed.

The Taliban structure which was helped by CIA - *maybe* (!) - became utterly corrupt over the following years in the same way as Hitler and oppressed the populace. First it was the evil invading USSR, then it was the evil West and evil capitalism, then because there was only one thing left to get pissed at - your own people, it's ban the television, and oppress women time.

Like Hitler, fight against foreign invaders and create a new Germany, then get madder and it's evil foreigners who aren't of the Aryan race (whatever that is), and then it's heck, what's left - ah the very people who you were supposed to helping, so it's Hitler Youth time as you try and opress your own people.

Sort of like the cycle in China as well, ending up with them right now being as opressive to their own people as any other dictatorship *cough* in the past century.

So as opposed to repeating the same mistakes, maybe a solid push in the right direction is necessary. I wonder if their is a population level Stockholm Syndrome. Perhaps that people used to oppression begin to accept it (after all, in Ireland people are used to ****ty roadworks and so on, but it's not the same as labour camps and educating women being against the law).

And anyway, it's a different world and talking about western US/UK "oppression" or "imperialism" is bull**** mostly. There are around 800 million people, around 1/7th of the worlds population, living in the "free" US/EU unions. Compare that to how mant were as free a hundred years ago, or a thousand.

Typedef

Sigh Red Moose, what's so free about living in a country that is letting US warplanes use it's air space?

Tell me do you agree with American policy in the Mid-East? If not then do you not find it a little unrepresentative and contrary to the spirit of the constitutional neutrality(that kept us out of ww2) to allow the US military access to this republic?

Tell me how are my views being represented here? Brushed aside by politicians reaping the benefits of kissing american ass and being seen to be kissing american ass by the public here and abroad?

You be the judge.

Of course the 40% of the pashtoon population who have few if any representatives in talks about the future of Afghanistan is just the kind of non-imperialist answer I have come to expect from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Brave enough it seems to let the Northern Alliance do all the real fighting.


QED.

Red Moose

Oh yes, sorry, I forgot to mention that I think Ireland being "neutral" a load of **** as well. Any country not willing to defend itself - maybe it's not worth defending, eh?

You think Ireland would be neutral if it was in the Middle East? Ireland's "neutrality" is a privelege with the two democratic powers on both sides - the US and EU.

Ireland is physically positioned in the world so being "neutral" just means "we don't need to do anything really".

Given the amount of economic aid Ireland has received from the EU on one side, and the US corporate investment on another, isn't it fair to let those countries that do our defending for us to refuel or whatever?

It's not much to ask. Again, Ireland is so far off the map in terms of war, "neutrality" is a joke. We are sitting slap bang in the centre of the democratic world, with only the Atlantic ocean and then the US on one side, and then the *entire* European Union on another. If anything, the centre of the future world government should be in Ireland .

Same with Iceland, who are also neutral I think. Switzerland? Well with the amount of money they hold, it's probably in everyone's interest no-one goes at it (plus, even with their neutrality, they can mobilise an army of 1 million (yes that many) and cut off road access totally within 24 hours in an emergency. Why do you think they've been left alone for like 700 years?).

Is Ireland neutral because people don't think it's worth defending (that's why other countries are not, isn't it?), or is it purely because we are sitting in a very privileged position?

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Sigh Red Moose, what's so free about living in a country that is letting US warplanes use it's air space?

Exactly how does your nation's neutrality reflect on your personal freedom?

Exactly how is any of your post relevant to the idea of the thread which is that the so-called protectors and promoters of democracy like Britain are saying "you should have democracy, but you wont be allowed vote for these people".

Originally posted by Red Moose
So as opposed to repeating the same mistakes, maybe a solid push in the right direction is necessary. I wonder if their is a population level Stockholm Syndrome. Perhaps that people used to oppression begin to accept it
The fact that this oppression (as we call it) exists in the first place indicates that fundamentalism had enough backing to take control of a large portion of the country.

Why would those who put fundamentalism into power through force not try and vote it in through an enforced democracy?

This was my point....Straw's comments are basically saying that having ousted the Taliban, they are not going to allow them enter any future government...mostly because if democracy is implemented, there are still enough pro-Taliban supporters to give them a significant voice, which being democratically elected would mean that the "western world" couldnt condemn them as easily.


jc

C B

Bonkey nobody has said that the interim government is going to be democratic. It is going to be broad based. Democratic elections will be held in 2-3 years.

The aim of the interim administration is to bring stability to the country before democracy can work.

In other regions, such as the balkans, the UN would have set up a protectorate to administer in the absence of a democratic government. However, in Afganistan outside agencies would not be trusted so the idea of a broad based interim government was concieved.

Jack Straw, and many others, obviously believe that if this government included hardcore Taliban then stability would be harder to acheive.

You and I may not agree that this is the best way forward, that does not make it hypocritical.

bonkey

Originally posted by C B
Bonkey nobody has said that the interim government is going to be democratic. It is going to be broad based. Democratic elections will be held in 2-3 years.

The aim of the interim administration is to bring stability to the country before democracy can work.

Fair point - hadnt looked at it that way.

It still irks me somewhat, though, that the "outside" influences have *any* say in who can and cant be in an interim government. I'm also curious as to how they will progress from this interim stage to a democracy....

If the interim govt is left to run itself, why would they want to bring in democracy? They have the power, and werent elected, so why risk anything by asking the public? I dont know which reports to believe, but the Northern Alliance, in many accounts are little better than the Taliban in terms of their behaviour, except that they werent in charge! What if these type of people get put into power and decide that they wont hold elections after all. Will the west go back in and boot them out again?

On the other hand, if the outside world has a say in all of this, then "interim" sounds like a nice respelling of "proxy" to me. You know - "you can rule autonomously, as long as you do these things that we tell you to do".

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing....its probably necessary...just that I cant see any interim broad-based solution working at all without severe guidance from the non-Afghan powers, in which case I think calling it an interim government is a bit of a farce. I take your point that they dont want the outside influence, but given the nations history, I cant see it working.

On the other hand....as shown in many previous discussions...you tend to have a much better background in this area, so feel free to enlighten me.

Good to see ya back CB. You were fierce quiet for a while there.

jc

Typedef

Words which people in that area seem fond of.
"We will have democracy soon", "After I have been in power for the next few years", "The people aren't ready to elect who I approve of so until they are I will be a custodian military dictator".

Oh at least the Pakistani's get a Pakistani dictating their governance to them, the Afghani's have to put up with Bush & co dictating from Washington, but seeing as how his father probably orchestrated the overthrow of at least 2 foreign governments as director of the CIA, why is any one suprised.

But hey realise, if the Afghani's could dictate in a similar fashion they would, similarly if a cow got the chance he would kill you and your whole family.

QED.

C B

I've been lurking. Most of the threads haven't been worth joining lately.

It could be that Afghanistan will have a de-jure broad based coaltion government as a front for a de-facto UN protectorate.

In any case you are right and the allies will intervene in the name of stability but mainly in their own interests.

This article from Slate details what the interests of Afganistan's neighbours may be. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058560

In any case stability will be the key to judging the sucess of any interim administration, regardless of how gerrymandered it is. And the allies will force democratic elections once stability is achieved.

Afghans will support this because any election will present the prospect of more control than any coalition, so the real fear is what happens after an election rather than if the alliance will allow an election.


Here are too good articles on Islam and democracy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4305525,00.html

and on the misnomer of "The Clash of Civilisations"
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/opinion/23SEN.html
You need to be registered for this one (registration is free and there is little or no spam mail to follow)

bonkey

Originally posted by C B
This article from Slate details what the interests of Afganistan's neighbours may be. http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058560

Interesting link. Good reading, right up to the last paragraph, which made me smile.....

Someone recently posted an interesting link about propaganda - an article written by a Yugoslavian (I think) guy who has been studying this thing.

One comment he made is that when a reporter refers to their own country as "we", they immediately lose any credibility in terms of objectiveness.

So....I was interested that this slate article had good info on all the neighbours, and then for the US role said :

"As for the United States, we...." at which point I smiled and stopped reading.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Red Moose

Same with Iceland, who are also neutral I think. Switzerland? Well with the amount of money they hold, it's probably in everyone's interest no-one goes at it (plus, even with their neutrality, they can mobilise an army of 1 million (yes that many) and cut off road access totally within 24 hours in an emergency. Why do you think they've been left alone for like 700 years?).

Well Iceland is in NATO, but doesn't have it's own army - www.cia.gov "Military branches:no regular armed forces; Police, Coast Guard; note - Iceland's defense is provided by the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force (IDF) headquartered at Keflavik"

Switzerland - every bridge in the country would blow within about 2 minutes of an invasion.

tribble

also

Switzerland - nuclear capability within 48 hours - factories and trained staff available 24/7/365

( i don't want to get involved in the debate - i'm not feeling intelligent today...)

Boston

mike65, thats what im trying to say,
the enlish goverment had its head up its arse when my great grand father was around and has continued to this day.

Better taken care of home issues, it seems we only give a damn about home when some **** (yes i said ****) wants to vote for the 10th time about abortion.

keep on having referendums untill we get the result we want.

how is THIS Democracy

mike65

Originally posted by Red Moose
Oh yes, sorry, I forgot to mention that I think Ireland being "neutral" a load of **** as well. Any country not willing to defend itself - maybe it's not worth defending, eh?

You think Ireland would be neutral if it was in the Middle East? Ireland's "neutrality" is a privelege with the two democratic powers on both sides - the US and EU.

Ireland is physically positioned in the world so being "neutral" just means "we don't need to do anything really".



Is Ireland neutral because people don't think it's worth defending (that's why other countries are not, isn't it?), or is it purely because we are sitting in a very privileged position?

Bang On! Red Moose,

Ireland can sit smugly on the sideline knowing that if
for some bizare reason a foreign power decided to invade
it could call on the rest of the western world to bale it out.

Thats why the anti NATO, anti nuclear movement here is such a joke, this country has sat under a protective umbrella ever since
WW2 ended, and it has'nt cost us a penny, which is very clever.

Mike.

Typedef

Wow isn't it easy for people to mouth off about violence and insinuate that the Irish are somehow cowards? FYI there has been a 30 year war raging on the North of this island.

Our neutrality comes from our territorial dispute with the next island, this neutrality is a good thing, nukes are the stupidist things ever built. Hey it's real easy to mouth off about how not supporting the use of nukes as a deterrant arises from complicity and smugness, but, nuclear winter is no joke and the more countries that get the bomb the more likely it is that these weapons will be used.


Now I know Chuck Norris never gets hurt in the movies but, unfortunately life is not like that and the more countries & groups of people who stand against divisive chimpanzee-with-a-stick politics the better.
But hey anyone who really believes in the stuff you are ranting about, how other countries are right in using the threat of nukes or war to "safeguard" "our" security, go right ahead, join the Northern Alliance and go make the world a safe place for the USA and Ireland, because heres a news flash, the Americans are the cowards. Bombing people from a great height, and funding, prodding the Northern Alliance into doing their fighting for them, war is only a media event for the Americans if no Americans actually get shot. Oh I know the American of mantra, overwhelming force, but god help the yanks if any of their own started to come home in body bags. I'm mean I'm not suggesting that launching a cruise missile from a destroyer doesn't take bravery on the part of the guy who pushes the button :rolleyes: to launch the cruise missile.
In fact now that I think of it you war advocates must be right it shows much more bravery to kill people via air strikes then it does to say rise up against colonial masters with the intent of getting shot, killed and martyrised just like Dev, who originated and enshrined Irish neutrality.

Of course maybe if George Bush explained the strategic realites of life to Dev, he would have understood and supported Star-Wars :rolleyes:
/Reality check.
Ghandi was a brave man, he did no fighting. Violence is an easy answer, it takes no thought , these "surgical strikes" aka "bull**** strikes" are a myth, dreamed up to make modern day imperialism and imperialistic wars seem glossy and fortitudous.

-"My other sig is inflammatory"