Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Global Liberalism versus Local Liberalism

By circletimessquare in Op-Ed
Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:00:00 PM EST
Tags: morally and intellectually defensible: liberalism (all tags)

For liberalism to survive in the West and regain the upper hand, it must have an identifiable platform. And merely opposing what conservatives propose is a recipe for obsolescence. Therefore, for liberalism to win back the upper hand in the West, it must accept that some of the conservative's agenda on the global stage is not only acceptable, but more in line with a liberal platform than a conservative one.


Consider this AP story for some perspective:

Ahmadinejad Seeks Purge of Liberal Profs

Sep 05 3:03 PM US/Eastern

By NASSER KARIMI

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, urging students to return to 1980s-style radicalism.

"Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a meeting with a group of students.

Ahmadinejad complained that reforms in the country's universities were difficult to accomplish and that the educational system had been affected by secularism for the last 150 years. But, he added: "Such a change has begun."

The president, in his role as head of the country's Council of Cultural Revolution, does have the authority to make such changes. But his comments Tuesday seemed designed more to encourage hard-line students to begin a pressure campaign on their own, thus forcing universities to oust the teachers.

Iran retired dozens of liberal university professors and teachers earlier this year. And last November, Ahmadinejad's administration for the first time named a cleric to head the country's oldest institution of higher education, Tehran University, despite protests by students.

Ahmadinejad is widely believed to need to jockey between various interest groups in Iran, at a time when hard-liners increasingly control more of the top rungs of government but still encounter resistance from parts of the public at large. Moderates also still remain in the government.

But Tuesday's comments seemed to follow a campaign promise by Ahmadinejad to develop a more Islamic-oriented country. Since taking office last August, he has also replaced pragmatic veterans in the government with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

Ahmadinejad's aim appears to be installing a new generation of rulers who will revive the fundamentalist goals pursued in the 1980s under the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. Shortly after the revolution, Iran fired hundreds of liberal and leftist university teachers and expelled numerous students.

How is it that GW Bush seems to be the only friend of these liberals in Tehran? Where are the Western liberals on the question of fighting this theocracy? Is not fighting them a real option?

Belligerence towards Iran is currently seen very much as a conservative Western agenda. And local liberals therefore oppose belligerence towards Iran on the grounds that the conservative's attitude is not helpful to the situation. However, global liberals recognize that the fight against the current Iranian theocracy is very much in line with a liberal agenda. So it is simple logic: how can opposing what a conservative wants to do, that eventually advances a liberal agenda, be anything but madness?

Nothing is going to stop conservatives, in the West or the Middle East, from attempting to advance their agenda and build their power base. They must be opposed in order to advance global liberalism in this world. But local liberals in the West and the Middle East both wilt and lose their agenda and power base because they are manipulated to appear in the Middle East as supplicants to the conservatives from the West, or to appear in the West as supplicants to the conservatives from the Middle East. And of course the local liberals are not in anyways such tools or supplicants in intent, but in effect, that is very much what they are: accessories to another conservative's agenda from another region of the world.

Currently the world is experiencing a growth in conservative extremist power, in the West, and the Middle East. And the conservative extremists in both regions owe it to each other for their growth. They play off of each other. And in response, liberals in both regions simply wilt. Because their agendas feed the conservatives in the other region. This is the failure of local liberalism.

Liberalism can only regain the upper hand from the growing power of the conservative extremists by forging a globally-oriented agenda. So, when citizens of the USA see a theocracy in Iran acquiring Nuclear weapons, they will be able to look to the liberals in their country and see an answer for that: opposition to that, by force if necessary. Because currently only conservatives have that answer for them. And when citizens of Egypt see Israel cluster bombing villagers, they will be able to look to the liberals in their country and see an answer for that: opposition to that, by force if necessary. Because currently only conservatives have that answer for them.

This is the truth: liberals in the West have more in common with liberals in the Middle East than they do with conservatives in the West. And liberals in the Middle East have more in common with liberals in the West than they do with conservatives in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the current activities of bigotted conservatives on either side is driving a wedge between these two regions, and currently, the local liberal's answer to that seems to be only dithering. They must take a globally oriented stand that demonstrates a cogent clear global platform, morally and intellectually consistent on a global level, or they lose more and more influence every day. Liberals are going to have to accept that a muscular stand is a necessary one in today's world.

Liberalism has to be divorced from the current empty-headed do-nothings that have seemed to have taken a hold of current liberalism on questions on the global stage. The communists of yore, albeit with a failed ideology, were nevertheless no strangers to armed struggle and war. Let us see a return of this muscular liberalism of the past that has answers for the common man on questions that are important to them. Marxists in Nepal seem to be the only truly liberal fighting force left in this world, and they are fighting for a lost ideology. Where is the liberalism of modern times with a moral backbone to actually fight for what it believes? Or is it nothing but bigots in one region fighting bigots from another region for us for years to come? Where is the global liberal response to these conservative bigots?

Liberalism will continue to wilt, and conservative extremists in various regions of the world will play and feed off of each other and unleash the bigotted ideas they represent on us all, to the sound of much unnecessary death and destruction. Because liberals will not act. Liberalism can save us from the madness of conservative regional bigots, but only a globally-oriented liberalism that is not afraid to use force and to take stands that threaten retaliation. Let us hope there are liberals out there who recognize what is really at stake in this world and the need to actually fight the conservative bigots with force.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o this AP story
o Also by circletimessquare


Display: Sort:
Global Liberalism versus Local Liberalism | 206 comments (185 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden)
We need radicalism to fight radicals (2.71 / 14) (#2)
by United Fools on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 05:37:17 PM EST

We need a culture revolution in Iran. We need to move some of Nepal's Maoists to Iran and call the Iranian students to follow the communist path to burn down everything religious. Bin Ladin will flee the mountains and the Taliban will surrender to the Red Guards and the ayatollahs will seek the protection of the Americans.

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
Hey! (3.00 / 9) (#7)
by MrHanky on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:09:40 PM EST

Aren't you supposed to make less sense than the article you respond to?


"This was great, because it was a bunch of mature players who were able to express themselves and talk politics." Lettuce B-Free, on being a total fucking moron for Ron Paul.
[ Parent ]
when united fools speaks the golden truth (3.00 / 4) (#43)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:32:54 AM EST

either the world is going to actually improve, or we're all fucking doomed. i don't know which and i'm kinda scared

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
wouldn't work. (1.50 / 4) (#54)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:20:29 AM EST

It wouldn't work. Radical Islam and Radical Liberalism are bedfellows, as history can attest. Hell, modern media and the "liberal" movement in the US attests to this as well, what with the fraud in the media of late which smears and slanders anyone fighting against Islamic radicals. "Oh, those poor opporessed Muslims!" they cry.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

You're not arguing for liberalism (1.83 / 6) (#4)
by partialpeople on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 06:17:52 PM EST

You're arguing for Neo-Conservativism.

i coud be arguing for poptarts (1.66 / 3) (#13)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:56:48 PM EST

i don't know what you would call what i am arguing for, all i know is, you need to fight for your beliefs, and i see too many ivory tower types who would rather sneer in smug superiority than actually roll up their sleeves and engage evil

this is a formal for obsolescence

i believe in global liberalism

that's what i'm calling it

now you call it what you will, but that hardly matters: it eclipses what you believe, apparently, if merely fighting for your beliefs is what turns you off

enjoy your extinction


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I would call it Neo-Conservativism (2.66 / 3) (#15)
by partialpeople on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:14:34 PM EST

as in, co-opting the realist view of the inevitability of war as an excuse for the traditionally liberal urge to spread democratic or economic reform.

ask Iraq and Afganistan how that's turning out, and then come lecture me about causes of my impending extinction.

[ Parent ]

iraq, afghanistan: difficult, depressing (1.00 / 4) (#17)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:48:47 PM EST

and? what's your point?

it's supposed to be easy?

we're supposed to find a way that is effortless and sunshine and happy faces everywhere?

ANYTHING worth fighting for in this world is exactly that: WORTH FIGHTING FOR

that you WON'T fight for something because it is difficult means simply that you have no resolve or backbone in your own beliefs. ok, fine, you're weak. i'm not!

so you go ahead: don't lift a finger

and continue to drip your high holy indignation at those who do fight for what they believe

what have you proven? what have you done?

nothing

have you stopped me? have you impressed me to change my behavior?

no

what have you done? who have you impressed? by your own repeated words, your own multiple statements: YOU WILL DO NOTHING

YOU WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP BUSH

YOU WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP BIN LADEN

YOU WILL DO NOTHING TO STOP ME

so why do you continue to think that you fucking MATTER?

and you talk to me of extinction?

ha!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Neo-conservatism loses its battles because (2.50 / 4) (#24)
by partialpeople on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:35:16 PM EST

the premise that you can bring liberal values to individual nations through force of arms is inherently flawed.  Napoleon only got it to work because he had no qualms about being a conqueror or establishing an empire.

Iraq and Afganistan are prime examples of the failure of Neo-Conservativism to follow through in practice.

If you're so keen on calling me a coward and "fighting for your beliefs", why don't you grab a gun and go out there yourself?  If you're going to disparage the point of this whole argument by claiming that "my side" doesn't matter, then why the fuck even post about it in the first place?  How can you claim the so-called high ground when you haven't gotten past the ivory tower phase of arguing on the internet?

Proof or STFU, as it were.  Surely the U.S. military is desperate enough to look past your obvious faggotry to put you in uniform.

[ Parent ]

this is kind of funny (1.33 / 6) (#30)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:32:22 AM EST

you find it impossible to concieve of what i am saying

i say "global liberalism"

you hear "american centered neoconservatism"

i say "not involved with nationalist bullshit, above that"

you hear "america at the center of the world"

why are you unable to conceive of a world without nationalist tirbal bullshit?

i can! IT'S MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT YOU BLIND FUCKING TURD

circletimessquare: "let us rise above local concerns"

partialpeople: "why are you championing american concerns?"

WTF?

HELLO????????????????? ANYONE HOME???????????????

moron: you have a lot of criticisms in your post above of a certain worldview

unfortunately, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN TO HEAR WHAT MY VIEWPOINT ACTUALLY IS. YOU AREN'T CRITICISING ME IN ANY VALID WAY. BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING HEAR WHAT I SAID

you have this narrative in your mind, locked in place, blindly, about how the world works, and you are COMPLETELY unable to see me, who is stanidng completely outside of your locked in little nationalistic narrative

I AM NOT THE FANTASY BOGEYMAN IN YOUR HEAD

LISTEN TO WHAT I AM ACTUALLY FUCKING SAYING FIRST YOU FUCKING TURD

THEN OPEN YOUR FUCKING MOUTH

listen carefully retard to these simple 3 words coming from my mouth:

FUCK

THE

USA

understand? did you hear me clearly enough? am i in any way unclear to you?

ok, good, now try again, respond to my post again: but this time, you blind nationalistic turd, when i say a GLOBALLY centered worldview, you are NOT ALLOWED anymore to reply to me "an american centered point of view sucks"

BECAUSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I AM FUCKING SAYING

AM I GETTING THROUGH YOUR THICK BLIND SKULL YET?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

yeah yeah (2.66 / 3) (#55)
by army of phred on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:22:33 AM EST

either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. don't worry, plenty of people bought that in '04.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
dude (1.33 / 3) (#84)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:37:43 PM EST

to paraphrase what i said above: you're not talking to me and what i am really saying when you say that

i say: "we need a global perspective"

you reply to me: "to hell with your america-centric perspective"

wtf?????!!!!!!!!!!!

can you follow the fucking basic principle of what i am saying?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

sure (3.00 / 2) (#140)
by army of phred on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:25:35 AM EST

if I don't agree with you, I'm with the terrorists.

I didn't buy that from Bush, so how can you think I'm going to buy it from some random blog poster?

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]

whoa (3.00 / 3) (#60)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:49:08 AM EST

Cool down there, mate.

Maybe you should write a post up on exactly what "global liberalism" is? It's something I'm not sure I'm following you on, as "liberal" and "global" have heavily weighted associations and assumptions (largely depending on where in the world you're coming from).

A Briton and an American reading your peice would have a drastically differing opinion on what it is you're trying to say. Likewise if they're familiar with political thought outside the mainstream.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

on the contrary (1.25 / 4) (#59)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:46:11 AM EST

On the contrary, it's possible to stop Islamofascism without forcing them to believe things as we do, or to be empire builders. I have full confidence in our Army, Air Force, and Marines to be able to bomb the shit out of them, repeatedly, until they learn how to behave on a global scale and stop being totalitarian shitheads.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

You're a goddamn retard (2.66 / 3) (#75)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:09:14 PM EST

Proof or STFU.  Please to be showing me the successes of "bombing the shit out of them".

[ Parent ]
proof (1.00 / 3) (#88)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:47:55 PM EST

Here is proof.

If they're acting up, lob a half dozen of these armed with non-nuclear explosives and kill everyone in their government. If their replacements fuck up, do it again.

If you need a more surgical response, send in a squad of seals to kill the offending rulers in the middle of the night.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Hey Corky (3.00 / 2) (#98)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:14:13 PM EST

You seem to misunderstand me when I say proof.  By that I mean results.  

We've "bombed the shit out of them" and we've toppled regimes.  So tell me, Doodles, where has that gotten us?

[ Parent ]

AYE, NIGGA! (none / 1) (#190)
by Hiro Antagonist on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 12:39:51 AM EST

The dispensing of tampons will rule the free world.

[ Parent ]

that's so fucking retarded (1.50 / 2) (#83)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:34:54 PM EST

the point is to fight ideas, and kill proponents of bad ideas on a person by person basis

the point is, in every society, even the most conservative, there are liberal forces (and likewise, in every society, even the most liberal, there are conservative forces). so what you are fighting for is a global liberal perspective. the entire fucking globe. you have enemies everywhere. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE FRIENDS EVERYWHERE

you want your friends in afhganistan, iraq, etc to regain the upper hand in their society away from the conservative bigotted assholes there. so why the fuck would you bomb everyone? because by declaring war on regions of people, rather declaring war on bad ideas, you are also killing your allies in your cause!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry (1.25 / 4) (#89)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:51:36 PM EST

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood. I don't think we should obliterate the entire country every time they fuck up. I think we sould make an example of those who are directly responsible for the fuckup.

An incentive like that will be enough for every government in the world (well, aside from China, probably, and the western countries which are militarily competitive with us, if only marginally). And, if that isn't incentive enough for the populace to reign in their own rulers, then the threat of a neighbor invading or exploiting them should be taken into consideration.

If nothing else, the perpetual fluctuation of power vacuum would result in them staying regionalized - and out of our hair.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

that's just manipulative bullshit (none / 1) (#92)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 05:00:26 PM EST

how about actually improving their situation?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
because... (1.80 / 5) (#106)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:35:27 PM EST

because it wouldn't (and hasn't) worked, not in any case I've heard of.

When has aide to Africa done anything but bollix the shit up worse? not at any time I'm aware of. if anything, "helping them" has only worsened their straits, as its led to the warlords and "legit" governments taking advantage of and dare I say manipulating the good will of the UN and the US for their own selfish political gain.

even if we help them help themselves, as we've tried in Iraq and SE Asia on several occasions, they've not taken the initiative. They've got to convince themselves to fix the situation - they've got to want it. We can't do it for them or guide them, as they'll depend on us like a crutch. We've got to do the equivilant of kicking your 30-year-old son out of the house and forcing him to live on his own.

now, if you've got an alternative approach to help them which hasn't already been tried and then failed, I'm all for it. But I know of no such plan aside from what I described above.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

JESUS GODDAMN CHRIST YOU STUPID FUCK (1.50 / 4) (#121)
by partialpeople on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 02:56:36 AM EST

can't you read?  Both CTS and I have given you alternative approaches throughout these posts: strengthening international law and international organizations (my approach), or creating a new grassroots extra-governmental, extra-national movement of militaristic liberalism (CTS' approach).

You bring absolutely nothing to the table with your "blow up the commies" drivel, so please stop taking up space on the tubes.

[ Parent ]

moron (1.33 / 3) (#169)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:15:58 PM EST

they are human beings

you act like you head south of the rio grande/ straights of bosporus and suddenly everyone is running around like maniacs

you don't believe in progress apparently

therefore, you don't believe in humanity

therefore, shut the fuck up, because you're just a useless bitter turd

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

not exactly (2.33 / 3) (#58)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:43:07 AM EST

I believe in fighting for what you believe. But I only believe in doing so when someone else is trying to push force you to believe something else, or nothing at all.

"Fighting for what you believe" is exactly why we've got to be involved with these idiot shmucks out in the desert. They're "fighting for what they believe" and in turn negatively impacting the lives of many, many others. Thus they must be stopped.

Yeah, that is, in essence, still "fighting for what you believe" but it's still a policy of non-agression. Non-agression with big motherfucking teeth.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

I would call it Neo-Poptarts. (2.60 / 5) (#37)
by Scrymarch on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:36:41 AM EST



[ Parent ]
let me clarify something... (1.25 / 4) (#57)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:31:14 AM EST

If I were in a foxhole fighting Islamists, and a liberal/communist/moonie/whatever popped in next to me to join the battle on my side, I'd consider him a compatriot and a brother. Really, this threat of global Islam is a bigger threat than Communism is to American ideals, at least in the short term.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

When the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. (2.80 / 5) (#186)
by Kadin2048 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 09:11:58 PM EST

While you might think this, and I'd probably agree with you -- if I was in that hole, I'd probably be tempted to agree that the enemy of my enemy was my friend -- isn't this just the sort of thinking that landed us (the U.S.) in our current predicament in the first place?

I mean, we basically empowered the Taliban because back in the 1980s; we thought that our existential struggle with the Soviet Union and Communism was more important than the threat that a few guys who espoused a fringe version of Islam would be. So we gave the Taliban Stinger missiles, watched as they drove the Soviets out, and began the rise of militant Islam and the modern terror movement.

In retrospect, we probably would have been a lot better off letting the Communists get Afghanistan and turn it into a client state; it probably wouldn't have affected the eventual outcome of the Cold War, and we would have not created a much more insidious enemy in the process.

Obviously, hindsight is a bitch.

However, while the guy in the foxhole probably isn't going to have a problem accepting help from anyone who's not going to try and kill him, one of the reasons why we have leaders off the battlefield is exactly so they can try and make decisions with a longer point of view.

Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is not your friend, but just another enemy. Or maybe they're neither an enemy nor a friend. In any case, it's not a black-and-white situation and shouldn't be treated like one. A whole lot of bad foreign policy can be blamed on 'realpolitik' and selling out values in favor of momentary expediency; I'd like to see a return to foreign policy based primarily on values and commonly-held philosophies, even if the results weren't immediately the most advantageous.

In the long run, not selling out your base principles is probably always the best way to go.

[ Parent ]

amen! ;-) nt (none / 0) (#187)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 10:38:42 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
well, I agree with THIS (1.75 / 4) (#56)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:28:05 AM EST

My here disagrees with your topic almost in entirety, but:


i don't know what you would call what i am arguing for, all i know is, you need to fight for your beliefs, and i see too many ivory tower types who would rather sneer in smug superiority than actually roll up their sleeves and engage evil

this is a formal for obsolescence

Agree 110% here, mate. Radical Islam is a menace to be dealt with. I don't like being World Police, but when the barbarians on the other side of the world present a very real threat to both your person and your way of life if left untendered, it's time to soldier up...

And, for what it's worth, I find that I agree with you on most topics.

I just think your definitions were fucked, and that lead me to disagree completely.

And, Marxism and Communism are shit...
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

yes marxism and communism are shit (1.25 / 4) (#82)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:30:49 PM EST

and i say as much in the fucking story above

why the fuck do you think i defend those?

hello??????????? anyone home????????


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Another definition gripe: (none / 1) (#189)
by Hiro Antagonist on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 12:36:06 AM EST

What would you define 'Global Liberalism' as?

Before we start spinnnnnnnnnnning the comment section into the far right slider bar, let's define terms.

[ Parent ]

so Woodrow Wilson was a neo-conservative? (n/t) (2.66 / 3) (#21)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:28:10 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Not all (2.50 / 4) (#27)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:16:59 AM EST

he was the classical IR liberal.

He believed that an international system (aka League of Nations) could work. Whereas Neo-conservatives believe that independent nations will naturally follow the lead of the mono-polar superpower (aka USA), the final arbiter of international law.

And he didn't use liberal evangelism as a justification for getting into WWI.  He went to war for non-idealistic reasons, but sought afterwards to  steer a fractured world back towards progress.


[ Parent ]

get this simple idea in your thick fucking skull: (1.00 / 8) (#28)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:23:57 AM EST

when i talk about global liberalism i am talking about...

drum roll please...

GLOBAL LIBERALISM

i know you have a fucking turd in the middle of your fucking brain that prevents you from even REMOTELY considering that possibility: but THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING USA

listen cartefully fuckknob:

FUCK

THE

USA

I DO NOT NEED THE USA TO SUPPORT MY BELIEFS, I DO NOT WNAT THE USA TO SUPPORT MY BELIEFS

so when i say "global liberalism" and you say "american neo-conservativism" THAT IS YOU SUPPLYING THAT BULLSHIT

NOT ME

open your FUCKING mind and accept that gee, i dunno, just possibly, it is possible to talk about a global liberal effort WITHOUT THE USA BEING INVOLVED AT ALL

capisce you fucking retard?

can you possibly fucking CONCIEVE OF THE FUCKING POSSIBILITY?

THEN STOP FUCKING TALKING ABOUT THE USA

IT'S NOT A VALID CRITICISM

do you want a usa-centered world? i don't

do you? you really don't? THEN WHY THE FUCK DO YOU FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A WORLDVIEW WITHOUT THE USA AT THE CENTER OF IT

YOU, fucktard, YOU ARE SUPPLYING THAT BULLSHIT

NOT ME

because you have a fucking rod up your ass that renders you incapable of imagining anything else!

WAKE

THE

FUCK

UP

YOU

BRAINDEAD

PRICK

move on! i've moved on, a lot of people have moved on from nationalist nonsense!

WHY CAN'T YOU YOU TRIBAL RETARD?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I might actually believe you (2.50 / 4) (#32)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:51:06 AM EST

If you said anything about a multi-lateral approach to spreading liberalism, like the United Nations or other forms of international coalition building.

If you don't want America to be the bringers of these reforms, what actor are you suggesting?

By what apparatus should these "evil" countries be held accountable?

[ Parent ]

(slaps forehead) (1.00 / 4) (#34)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:03:38 AM EST

"If you don't want America to be the bringers of these reforms, what actor are you suggesting?"

YOU you blind dumb fuck!

FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!

duh!

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING!

i am not telling you to fight for ANY agenda but your own

do you understand me?

because my issue is not to convince you of an agenda, my issue is to convince you that you actually have to FIGHT for your agenda

my issue is not with the content of your agenda, my issue is with your INACTION in enforcing your beliefs!

do you feel me yet?

"By what apparatus should these "evil" countries be held accountable?"

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

do you agree with that document?

do you see the UN of today actually enforcing it?

i don't. i see a very expensive debate society and angry letter writing campaign

but that doesn't mean we can't enforce it for them! the ideals are sound! but the execution of those ideals SUCK

it is VERY simple: you FIGHT for what you believe in, or what you believe in DIES

that's it! that's the simple truth!

what someone else believes in WINS, simply because they fight for it

this is absolute golden truth about the world you live in: the ideology that wins in this world is not the "right" ideology, or "good" ideology, by any measure whatsoever. the ideology that wins in this world is the ideology that FIGHTS. it could be the most brutal ideology, it could be the most enlightened ideology. none of that matters. all that matters is that it fights. that's the SOLE decider on what ideology comes to dominate the world

do you get it?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Okay (2.66 / 6) (#36)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:23:26 AM EST

I agree that the world would be a better place with a stronger, more descisive and dare I say more militaristic United Nations.  

But the way to make that happen is not to undermine the UN's already tenuous claim to international law by making unilateral action par for the course.  

You can't have both a system where international law is respected and a hegemonic superpower disregards that law any time it desires to.

You might think it's "weak", but a reform of the United Nations and international law, with a strong commitment from ourselves, is the only way lasting liberalism is going to be thrust upon the dark places of the world.  And the more we galvanize the other powers against us with unilateral action, the harder that kind of reform is going to be.

Either way, +1 FP from me.  Not cause I agree with the story, but for the debate.

[ Parent ]

you are intellectually honest,i honor you for that (2.25 / 4) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:00:10 AM EST

but if you have an international organization that doesn't do it's job, something happens: its member states begin to break off and do their own things

in other words, the usa going off on iraq is not a cause of a disease, it's a symptom of a disease

i AGREE with you that the usa going off on its own half cocked taking on iraq by itself is COMPLETELY WRONG

but the UN not doing anything about iraq for years before hand is MORE wrong

if the UN had cleaned up iraq first, and it had plenty of time to do so, then the usa would still be under wraps

so how do you fix the situation?

berate the usa for going off on its own?

ok... do that... now what? have you actually solved any problems in the world?

now, here's another option: the UN actually getting back to doing its job. if it goes after rogue states that endanger the world and subjugate their people, then there is nothing for the usa to do. the UN replaces the USA as top dog, as it SHOULD BE THE TOP DOG!

so please: yell at the usa all you want for going off on iraq

meanwhile, north korea hasn't changed, myanmar hasn't changed, zimbabwe hasn't changed

so you haven't really effectively convinced the usa of anything, and the un is still broken, and people are still suffering in the world

so what is more important to you? just berating the usa... and not solving any problems? or actually solving the world's problems and thereby removing the usa as top dog and helping the suffering in the world?

again, FUCK THE USA, i am not defending the usa. i am merely saying the usa isn't the fucking point

you're forgetting the most important thing: actually solving problems in the world

i don't want the usa to be top dog doing that, neither do you

so if the un won't do the right thing, SOMEONE has to. and it shouldn't be the usa! but it should be SOMEONE, ANYONE

and if the UN doesn't do the right thing, someone will do the right thing, outside of the UN's perusal

and that's the way it is going to be if the UN doesn't wake the fuck up and turn itself around

i am in fact proposing a third way, beyond the un, and beyond the usa: a global liberal force, kind of like al qaeda, but liberal: attack north korea's ruling assholes. attack myanmar's kleptocrats, attack mugabe's cadre of assholes. i'm serious

these people are criminals according to liberal ideals. what are liberal ideals worth if no one enforces them?

SO ENFORCE THEM ALREADY

we need any one's permission to act against evil men in this world?

let us show the world that liberal ideals have a backbone

because the un sure doesn't

and the usa has a backbone, but it also has its own agenda, which is not the global liberal agenda

the third way rising

global liberalism

like the ancient days of the communists, who knew how to fight for their beliefs (even though their beliefs sucked, they still knew how to fight, and that's the important thing)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Sounds cool (2.50 / 4) (#46)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:55:56 AM EST

but one of the core tenets of liberalism is the idea that laws should rule society and not (subjective) moralities.  When you suggest that a group act outside the realms of law to enforce a morality, you shed yourself of liberalism.  

In essence, your actions could vindicate all the extra-legal actors in the world whom you oppose, and encourage the evil people of the world to start acting outside the law as well. It makes a strong case for an anarchical (non-liberal) system.

What a truly global liberal would do is work to establish and enforce real law.  In other words, making the UN enforce its laws instead of doing it for them.  Or displacing the UN in favor of a stronger multi-national authority.  

That would be quite a feat.

[ Parent ]

wrong (2.00 / 2) (#48)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 03:25:13 AM EST

belief comes before structure

and when structure breaks down, belief must be there to pick up the slack

for it is upon the foundation of raw belief that the structure is buit

you can't place your faith in the structure before your faith in the belief. that's backwards. it doesn't work. the structure can go astray and do nothing or do wrong things. you must have a belief in something above the structure to right it

how long do we wait to fix the un while suffering continues?

10 years? 50 years?

and when the un is blocked by its diplomatic members for reasons outside the scope of the un's purpose? what then? what do you do when the hope is so dim for action through the un?

you act outside the structure, when it is proven the structure is broken

the league of nations failed to prevent wwwii, for exactly the same reasons the un failed to prevent the war in iraq: inaction, impotency

the un should be fixed, the un must be fixed

but you should be prepared to look at your options if the un should prove unfixable

is that an impossibility in your mind?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Scratch that last comment for now (2.66 / 3) (#50)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 03:47:53 AM EST

It's late and I'm not sure I can stand by what I wrote up there.  We'll see after I sleep on it.

[ Parent ]
what about Clinton then? (2.66 / 3) (#29)
by Delirium on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:24:49 AM EST

The Kosovo war doesn't seem too different from the Iraq war, apart from: 1) it's a smaller region; and 2) we more strongly took sides in its internal conflicts.

[ Parent ]
Maybe a little (3.00 / 2) (#35)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:07:34 AM EST

But:

1.  The conflict in Kosovo was carried out under the auspices of international law by way of NATO.  It flagrantly went against the UN, but at the very least wasn't unilateral.

2.  There was not even a hint of any "spreading democracy" style rhetoric.

3.  Kosovo is now in the hands of the United Nations, as opposed to the neo-con fantasy that war torn countries could be trusted to embrace liberal values on their own.

4.  Kosovars were taking up arms against the Serbs long before we showed up on the scene.

[ Parent ]

you have to fight (1.14 / 7) (#41)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:22:08 AM EST

regardless of the foundation

if none of your 4 points above were true above, it was still valid to go to the balkans to fight the fascist racism there

and if no one in the world would do it except one nation, that doesn't mean that one nation was wrong, it means the rest of the world was wrong for not being with that one nation

get it?

the one wins the conflict is the one ACTS. you don't win ANY points by standing on the sidelines criticizing the actors!

sitting on the sideline and just criticizing those who act is a recipe for what exactly?

the usa going in iraq by itself was wrong. but not because the usa went in by itself. but because no other nation joined them!

to fix todays problems, you don't just berate and criticize the usa. to fix todays problems what you do is... ACTUALLY GO AND FUCKING FIX TODAYS PROBLEMS

duh!

when you do that, what happens?

the usa fades from view, because they aren't the point any more

in fact the usa never was the point!

in other words i am not defending the usa. FUCK THE USA

all i am saying is that criticism of the usa DOESN'T ACTUALLY SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS!

criticize the usa ALL YOU WANT. please! chant after me:
FUCK THE USA!
FUCK THE USA!
FUCK THE USA!

feel better? good! now, when your done blowing off your useless steam, could you actually roll up your fucking sleeves and get some work done actually fucking solving the worlds problems please? because the usa isn't impressed with your criticism. NOONE IS IMPRESSED WITH YOUR CRITICISM. they are impressed by your OWN ACTION. the usa just wants results on its own nationalistic agenda. how do you stop the usa from advancing its nationalistic agenda? by holding back its agenda?

NO!

you have your OWN agenda, and you ACT on that and guess what happens? the usa moves to the back of the class where it belongs, because its not center stage anymore

get it?

you get the usa off the center stage in the world by taking center stage yourself, not simply yanking the usa off stage and leaving a void! SOMEBODY WILL FILL THAT VOID

why not you?

do you feel me?

ACTION ON IDEALS WORKS

INACTION AND EMPTY POINTLESS CRITICISM OF ACTORS DOES NOT


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

looks like Wilson was wrong, then (1.66 / 3) (#61)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:51:59 AM EST

Well, it looks like Wilson was wrong, then, is history is any judge.

The League of Nations and the UN were and have been wildly ineffective at getting anything good done in world "policing". Meanwhile, the US (ie "world superpower") as single-handedly stepped up to the plate on numerous occasions and saved nations from dire straights when those large metapolitical agents failed to do a damn thing.

Hint: look at the League's response to Hitler prior to the war. It might tell you something about the UN in its current state.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

The League of Nations' failure (2.75 / 4) (#74)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:02:54 PM EST

and the rise of Nazi Germany can be placed squarely on the French and British seeking unrealistic punitive reparations after the war while simultaneously refusing to take real action on behalf of the League.  That the organization's founding nation decided not to join it didn't help.

Acting single handedly might put out a few fires but ultimately leads to international anarchy.  No single nation can hope to impose law and order on the other nations of the world, only a supra-national organization can do that.

More countries might make a commitment to strengthening the United Nations if they thought that the USA might start acting more in accordance with international law.

The more we act outside the law, the more we encourage other nations to do the same.

Weak international institutions are just as doomed to failure as monopolar anarchies.  That's why America needs to make a commitment to stand behind the UN, using diplomacy to encourage other strong nations to do the same.

[ Parent ]

sounds great, but... (2.00 / 3) (#87)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:43:48 PM EST

Sounds great, but what do you do when the totalitarian government repeatedly ignores the "requests" (and that's all the are, without backbone behind them) of the UN? Ask them again nicely? Wait for them to kill you?

No, we've tried that, repeatedly, and it's been a failure every single time (otherwise you might be able to find a counter examble).

It's nice to think "the UN will fix our problems" but the truth is they will not. They can not prevent a country which repeatedly states that they are going to seek nuclear weapons, period, without military might. Individual countries will do nothing more than offer token assistance in that task, as war is an expensive proposition, and would drastically impact a country's economy negatively without winning it and bringing in spoils of war from the side that lost. (War is a very profitable business for governments themselves, when they win.)

And, of course, if you give the UN any sort of military power, they instantly become a world governing body (as opposed to simply a forum through which tactical, ecomic and political decisions can be made).
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

O RLY? (1.50 / 2) (#100)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:17:07 PM EST

Hey brainiac, if you've been paying attention you'd know that a "world governing body" or a "UN with any sort of military power" is exactly what I'm recommending.

A weak UN is just as doomed as a unilaterally acting USA.

And war is not profitable for governments, it's profitable for government contractors.

[ Parent ]

well then (1.00 / 3) (#107)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:37:48 PM EST

Well then, if that's what you're suggesting, you've not come up with a very bright idea. Don't you think you've got enough laws and regulations to fuck with in your daily life?

As for government contractors making the money instead of the government... what do you think a government is? it's a collection of people. and people, such as bush and cheney, own companies, some of which just happen to be government contractors.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Liberalism... (2.93 / 15) (#6)
by jd on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 07:22:31 PM EST

...can only be achieved through liberalism. That is the great paraodox of it. Despite the fact that true liberalism is non-judgemental, ALL attempts to marry it to ANY other political ideology WILL poison it. It can co-exist, but it cannot be combined.

Liberalism cannot be created by force, for force denies equality of ideas, as force - by definition - asserts that the forcer's beliefs are superior to those of the target of that force.

Liberalism cannot be created by coercion, for by definition it is a philosophy of free thought, and free thought is impossible in an atmosphere of deception and shadows.

Liberalism cannot be conservative, for conservatives believe that something (whatever the thing is they are conservative about) should be beyond question, precluding the possibility of co-existing with any who are not conservative on the same issue(s).

Liberalism cannot be Libertarian, for Libertarians believe that everything is up for question, which precludes co-existing with any who are not Libertarian.

Different cultures evolve at different speeds. Not just in relation to other cultures. Technology, economics, philosophy, art and social systems all evolve independently and at different rates. If you wish to change one, you must change them all, or you will destabilize those you are changing. The balance between these systems must be maintained or improved, it must never be worsened.

Liberals, therefore, hold that non-interference is generally the best policy - EXCEPT where to do nothing is to permit destabilization. Liberals aim for greatest stability across all cultures by allowing independent progress (and regress and even congress). When there is interference between two cultures, then non-interference is often not an option, as interference is destabilizing and depriving one party of their right to live in the society of their choosing.

(World War II was, therefore, entirely valid from a Liberal standpoint, as fighting the war created balance and to have not done so would have destroyed it. Vietnam, however, was not valid from a Liberal standpoint, as it denied a country the right to elect its own head of state, and therefore the right to make its own decisions and its own mistakes.)

Who fights for liberalism? I can answer that. Liberalism doesn't need to fight. It exists independent of the petty and the mundane, and has no need of champions. Backbones are good for fighting gravity, but what good is that when Liberalism is all things at all times? Why fight gravity when you ARE the very force itself?

Iran is just a blip in history. It has no significance. Neither does America. What possible meaning can there be in a measily 300 years? The political system in the US is so new that the Government of the day has to totally invent its own Constitution, selectively interpreting the original to make it fit, just to get what it considers important done.

(If this isn't ok, then the Constitution is clearly incomplete and should expressly forbid such actions - and possibly a few more besides.)

The current Iranian suppression won't last. They need nuke scientists, rocket scientists and computer wizards. You don't get those kinds of skills by being a hardline anything. Intellectual ability and extremist idealism are utterly irreconcilable and cannot exist in the same person for long. To achieve what Iran wants to achieve, it HAS to have liberal scholars. It has no choice. Not because liberals will impose it, but because the universe doesn't allow for anything else.

IMHO, liberalism is a right, not a statute. So? Who gets to decide on rights? Nobody. If they do, it is not a right, it is permission. Rights, true fundamental rights, inalienable God-given rights, CANNOT be granted and CANNOT be taken away.


an interesting essay: (2.33 / 3) (#9)
by zenofchai on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:40:43 PM EST

C. S. Lewis: "Why I am not a Pacifist". Recommended reading.
--
The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
[ Parent ]
no that's bullshit (2.00 / 5) (#12)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:54:11 PM EST

an ideology that can't enforce its beliefs fades from the planet

if it means that less just, more burtal ideologies keep us locked in stupidity, then that's what is going to happen

the ideology that wins on the planet is the ideology that can spread and propagate itself form generation to generation

liberalism does not survive by saying "this is right, end of story"

no, it survives by saying "this is right, and we are going to enforce that"

i for one don't want liberalism to fade form the earth

you, in your obstinence because you are hesitant to go to force, apparently prefer that people live under burtality and injustice

simply because you won't sully your ivory tower with the mere thought that in this world, things get messy sometimes

so you and people who think like you will fade from the earth: you don't enforce your beliefs, you don't propogate them geographically or temporally across the generations

but i won't fade from the earth

i bleieve in liberalism

i believe in it, unlike you, enought to fight for it

so enjoy your hermetically sealed ivory tower

sorry its so messy down here in the mud in the reality of human nature

go ahead and sneer and spit on us who are willing to struggle

but we are the ones who inherit the earth


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Explain, then... (1.66 / 3) (#113)
by jd on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 12:54:08 AM EST

...why Buddhism is the world's third-largest religion, despite absolutely prohibiting the enforcing of anything? By your logic, it should have died a long time ago, but it didn't. Its acceptance and tolerance has actually kept it going when intolerant, hate-filled religions have died an ugly, obscene and self-inflicted death.

Explain why every violent revolution, even in the name of peace and/or justice, has resulted in a dictatorial system, where the government fears and suppresses a fearful, suspicious population? Yet why peaceful revolutions have - in general - produced stable, peaceful, well-respected nations that may not be perfect, but do not live in abject paranoia. The latter isn't a universal truth, but the former is. Not one single violent uprising has ever created a peaceful, tolerant society.

Explain why tribalism - the ultimate expression of looking out for number one, first, last and always, has been replaced in virtually all advanced societies by notions of social justice, self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, delayed gratification and the belief that the welfare of all mankind - even that of an enemy - is of greater import than keeping everything to oneself?


[ Parent ]

Buddhism (2.33 / 3) (#117)
by Delirium on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:47:36 AM EST

Seems not to have worked out too well as far as preserving the freedoms of Tibet's people.

[ Parent ]
First, get your facts straight (2.66 / 3) (#183)
by SnowBlind on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 05:59:49 PM EST

It is the 6th largest by population, 6% by total and the first 5 make up 90%.

So it is a rather small group, actually, behind Traditional Chinese indigenous beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions

Oh one more thing, can you show me a case of a peaceful, tolerant society that exists because of a peaceful uprising?

You might be right that violence cannot create such a society, but you also have not proved that a peaceful society IS the result of a peaceful uprising.

There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
[ Parent ]

liberalism has often been brought about by force (2.75 / 4) (#22)
by Delirium on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:31:45 PM EST

I don't recall the U.S. gaining its independence through nonviolent protest, nor Germany and Japan being defeated through the same.

[ Parent ]
not often. always (1.66 / 3) (#25)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:36:56 PM EST

this is simply the way of the world:

  1. an ideology enforces itself via force, and therefore it exists
  2. or it doesn't enforce itself via force, and it fades away

is that right? is that wrong? is that just? is that unfair?

none of those questions matter. that's just the way it is

arguing with this notion is not arguing with me, or neocons, or gw bush, or bin laden, or franco, or stalin, or pol pot, or tojo, or anyone

arguing with this notion is like arguing against the tides or rising and setting of the sun: it's an immutable fact of life, there's no argument. that's just the way it is

now grow the fuck up, western spoiled children, and fight for a world where your grandchildren will have it as good as you do

or don't, and let them suffer, and let them curse your inaction and weakness, while they suffer under the boot of brutality and fascism that you won't defy today, when it is smaller and more easily defeated and invovles less suffering to nip in the bud

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

not always (none / 1) (#72)
by m a r c on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 11:30:02 AM EST

for 2) if an ideology or meme is willingly accepted by people then there is no need for force.

Actually I believe over the long term the only ideologies to really survive will be the ones accepted without force. Force is a tempory thing and will change hands as time goes by. This means that any ideology enforced by it only has a tempory lifespan.
I got a dog and named him "Stay". Now, I go "Come here, Stay!". After a while, the dog went insane and wouldn't move at all.
[ Parent ]

yes, "might makes right" is bullshit (none / 1) (#81)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:27:53 PM EST

and ineffective in the long run

but you are forgetting the corollary to "might makes right":

the corollary is "right makes might"

so, in the long term, both right and might coexist

you can't have a just happy rich society that is also meek and weak

simply because such a society would attract and be consumed by evil minded assholes, from outside the society, and from within

being right requires enforcement

there is never such a thing as a peaceful prosperous happy society that does not also enforce and fights for its principles

because then those principles would decay over time and be eaten away at, and you'd have a poor unhappy society

right and might go hand in hand, and always will. they have to. one doesn't truly exist without the other in a longterm maintainable way


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

On that note (3.00 / 2) (#138)
by brain in a jar on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:24:45 AM EST

there is never such a thing as a peaceful prosperous happy society that does not also enforce and fights for its principles because then those principles would decay over time and be eaten away at, and you'd have a poor unhappy society

I think you need to remove that plank before looking for those motes in the eyes of your brothers. Right now, your country is failing to uphold the principles on which it was founded even within its own borders.

Sooner or later this may well lead to the consequences you list, it could be argued it has already done so partly (USia seems prosperous, but unhappy at present).

The war in Iraq (the Mess 'o' potamia) and the so called "War on Terrorism" have been instrumental in allowing the Bush administration to undermine the very freedoms and principles for which they claim to fight e.g. Limited executive power, freedom from unwarranted government intrusion, no searches (evesdropping) without a duly issued warrant, the right to the due process of law etc.

If you promote warfare, you also promote these changes within the nation. In an ideal world we would be able to bring freedom to the world, in practice the attempt is frequently counter productive, especially when carried out by a mix of delusional and incompetent people (BushCo).

Basically, I disagree with you not on the concept of freedom is good for everyone, but on the idea that military intervention is an effective way of spreading freedom, it is only one tool and generally not a very effective one.


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

promote warfare? (none / 0) (#167)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:12:23 PM EST

i merely accept that it exists!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
This is incorrect. (3.00 / 2) (#180)
by OnTheMoonWithSteve on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 10:59:38 AM EST

It's true that violence has been used to install more liberal systems of government, the most obvious example being both Germany and Japan in WWII.

However, it's also true that this has been accomplished through nonviolent means, such as the civil rights struggle in the US with Martin Luther King Jr., and the struggle for independence in India with Ghandi.  Both of these instances were neither cowardly nor lazy, both were created with the idea of nonviolence at the very foundation of their strategies, and both were extremely successful.  To suggest that violence is the only way to uphold ideals is to condemn humanity to perpetual warfare.

[ Parent ]

When the Iranian Liberals take up arms (2.50 / 2) (#31)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:47:00 AM EST

get back to me.

Germany had a whole history of European enlightenment and liberalism, so it's not like we gave them anything they didn't already have before.

Japan was also a relatively liberal constitutional monarchy with a strong private sector by the time WWII broke out.

That's a far cry from the so-called Islamofascists we're talking about converting.

[ Parent ]

your problem is you are a nationalist, a tribalist (1.33 / 3) (#33)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 12:55:08 AM EST

from your last few posts it is now obvious that you cannot think of people in terms of what they believe, you can only think of them in terms of nationalities

to you, that they are "iranian" means they are all "islamofascists" that we cannot "convert"

which is complete ethnocentric bullshit on your part

there is a huge well of liberals in iran who have more in common with my set of beliefs than conservative assholes in the west

and also, more in common with my values than i have in common with you

you're a hopelessly ethnocentric turd

in my mind, the struggle underway in the world is one of liberals, in the west or the middle east, fighting conservatives, in the west or the middle east

but you can only see "usa versus iran", or (this nation) versus (that nation)

you really need to wake the fuck up and clean your mind of your disgusting ehtnocentric thinking, if you ever hope to matter constructively to the subjects you are talking about

IDEAS

not

TRIBES

do you understand that?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Ideas don't take up arms (3.00 / 3) (#38)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:44:32 AM EST

Not tribes, <i>actors</i>.  Nations, people, factions, governments, religions, cultures, civilizations, individuals, whatever.

And no, I don't think all Iranians are Islamofascists.  It's <i>your</i> premise that the nation of Iran is under their control.  And I don't disagree with that.

Don't lecture me on being constructive if you're going to imply that ideas have any worth outside of the people who act on them.  Especially not when you're trying to argue that more people should take action.


[ Parent ]

we have no disagreement (none / 1) (#40)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:11:55 AM EST

my entire point is acting on beliefs

if you agree with me on that, then i have no argument with you

you read in my previous comment that ideas outside of action are valid

and of course, that is not true: ideas must be backed up with action or they don't matter. so we have no disagreement, we just have miscommunication

the world needs people acting on beliefs and ideas, rather than people acting in the name of tribes and nations

and we in fact are seeing that in today's world. the rise of al qaeda is most interesting because it is a global force fighting for an idea: global islamic fundamentalism. al qaeda fight for no nation

therefore, the way you fight al qaeda is NOT with the usa, which is a nationalistic force. you fight fire with fire. you fight ideas with ideas

you fight al qaeda, a global conservative force, with a global liberal force

but most importantly for liberals of the world to realize: YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY FIGHT

and that's my whole point


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

So why are you sitting around bullshitting (none / 0) (#194)
by DrToast on Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 10:20:49 AM EST

on a web forum and not out there FIGHTING? Why don't you join up and ACTUALLY FIGHT?

HYPOCRITE.

[ Parent ]

America's freedom was gained through violence (2.85 / 7) (#114)
by jd on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:06:15 AM EST

And what did that violence buy? Freedom from a king? The President claims to have the right to ignore any laws they choose, when they choose, how they choose. (The Supreme Court cannot enforce any decision, so the Government of the day is free to ignore it. And has, often.)

Freedom from wrongful arrest? Yeah, and the tales of dragnets arresting thousands without warrant or probable cause, not just in modern times but throughout American history, haven't convinced you yet that you have no such freedom?

Freedom to be free? Slavery was abolished in England in 1770. Remind me again when it was abolished in the United States, I seem to have forgotten...

Freedom to determine one's own future? I'm sure the Sioux would be most impressed to hear that. Whilst your at it, please do tell when you're going to hand the Black Hills over.

Freedom of religion or belief? I doubt too many Muslims feel that today. I doubt too many Anglicans felt that when the United States overthrew British rule. Or Communists in the 1950s and 1960s. Or pacifists during those times conscription was in force - at one time in America, pacifism could get a person shot.

America is not a free country. You can play the system or you can die, but your list of alternatives to those simply doesn't exist. Freedom to die isn't what I would consider much of a freedom.


[ Parent ]

As for World War 2... (1.80 / 5) (#115)
by jd on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:30:13 AM EST

That is a case where I fully acknowledge that doing nothing would have been the greater evil. I believe I mentioned that such cases existed. Defeating Germany and Japan wasn't much of a choice, as the alternative would have been total destruction.

Having said that, did it bring freedom, or merely preserve what was already there? Japan is no more free than it was in 1939 - it is still ensnared by its militaristic past, still obsessed with the "glorious" war criminals, still determined to be a military superpower. Japan is not a free country. It is also a very dangerous country - western women who go there alone have a propensity for getting killed or enslaved by one of the many organized criminal gangs there.

What of Germany? Germany wasn't even a single country for most of that time, and the eastern half would likely have been happier if fried under nuclear bombs than to have lived under Stalinist rule and te Stazi secret police. Yeah, we sure brought freedom to them, didn't we? And even when the wall came down, the allied nations who had pressured for that to happen did NOTHING to help East Germany recover, causing the entire German economy to collapse, triggering a major upswelling in neo-Nazis and real fascism (not Bush's "lets blame somebody, there's an election coming" fascism).

World War II, then, whilst necessary and unavoidable by Europe, did nothing more than prevent a further deterioration of freedoms. It did nothing to add to them, it did nothing to spread them, it did nothing to consolidate them.

(It's also unclear how much freedom it really preserved. It resulted in the UK-USA joint spying operation against their own citizens, which is hardly the most freeing thing in the world, and was the genesis for such things as Echelon which the Australian Government confirmed existed a few years back. Still better than the alternative, but whether it remains so depends on whether the stench of the rotting, decaying remnants of freedom can spur people into recognizing that the current system is a dangerous, toxic mess.)

There are many, many truly evil people in the world. Rudolph Hess and Myra Hindley were two of the most evil. I have a very hard time believing, though, that they were so evil that murdering them in cold blood whilst in captivity was much of a blow for any kind of freedom. You might well believe they deserved death. Fine. But that's not what they were sentenced with. Their deaths were extrajudicial killings that served no purpose beyond political point-scoring. Murder for the purpose of scoring points has NOTHING to do with any kind of freedom.


[ Parent ]

Good article cts (2.40 / 5) (#10)
by eavier on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:16:16 PM EST

although I think that anyone that manages to successfully get Western and Middle Eastern liberals into bed with each other deserves a Nobel peace prize and hefty chunk of Mars as a reward. That's not beacuse these two groups wouldn't get on. They probably would.

The problem is as always, religion. If you want a political philosophy based on a global belief in progress, and the freedom of the global citizen, you need to marginalise religion so much that it goes back to doing what it was designed to do - promote goodwill to your fellow men and promise a life in the here-after for the individual. Not impede personal freedoms and not constantly used as a battering horse to push through mad reform for the lunatic fringe on to all of us.

So there's your problem. How do you marginalise something that is on the ascendancy?

There is so much disillusion not only in Middle East, but in the West with modern life. What does it all mean? Why have they got more than I have? Am I really better off with my fancy jacket and ipod? There must be more to it than this? Why did America kill my brother?

A liberal cannot answer these questions like religion can so people in their droves these days are searching for 'meaning' to it all and everything from Tarot to Islam is providing them with answers.

The second problem is that the moderates, liberals and good people of this world are by and large, fucken sheep. They have good morals, believe in equality and will help their neighbour out of crisis but they won't for the good of humanity, first stand on a street corner and proclaim that we must maintain our freedom because they're afraid that they to will be judged by their fellow liberals as one of the 'lunatic fringe'. Liberals by and large, sit in their dining rooms discussing but never doing.

Great liberal leaders exist. I don't know anything about Martin Luther King and his political ideologies but he seemed like a rare vocal liberal. He after all, managed to get black people in the States equal opportunities and rights as their fellow white countrymen. But to white liberals back in the day, how was his opinions and speechs viewed? With open arms? Or rocking the boat a little too much?

Until a real liberal leader rises in America, raises the gold standard and takes a non religious truly global viewpoint, conservatives the world over are only gonna get stronger. And it has to be an American, as Americans don't listen to anyone but themselves. Sorry but they don't.

Whatever you do, don't take it into your house. It's probably full of Greeks. - Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Ufology Doktor in da house

What? (2.80 / 5) (#11)
by partialpeople on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 09:48:18 PM EST

Reverend MLK wasn't exactly Mr. Secularism.  Only idiots think religion and liberalism can't co-exist.

[ Parent ]
Well of course they can exist (3.00 / 4) (#14)
by eavier on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:08:56 PM EST

A true liberal would never exclude someone for their faith, that wouldn't be liberal would it?

I'm talking about religion gaining more of voice as modern life can no longer provide the answers. If life is losing direction, a person will naturally start looking for something that will provide some in their vacuous directionless life. Religion promises that.

I'm only an idiot when i'm drunk and when i am i never discuss religion and liberalism. Mainly cup sizes and i ain't talking water vessels.

Whatever you do, don't take it into your house. It's probably full of Greeks. - Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Ufology Doktor in da house

[ Parent ]

A bit of advice. (2.50 / 8) (#16)
by V on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:45:48 PM EST

Before ranting like you know what the fuck you are talking about, make sure you know what the fuck you are talking about.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

if i don't know what the fuck i am talking about.. (3.00 / 2) (#19)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:01:24 PM EST

can i talk about what i am fucking instead?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Plz explain yuo, then... Oh, nothing to say? $ (2.00 / 3) (#45)
by BerntB on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:40:27 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Your 0-bombing confirms you have nothing $ (1.00 / 6) (#131)
by BerntB on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:02:13 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Whatever....... (1.25 / 8) (#18)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:00:58 PM EST

Liberals are the retarded stepchildren of failed South American Communists.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

MTVVTNUKULARNUKULARNUKULARNUKULAR (1.83 / 6) (#26)
by debacle on Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 11:37:46 PM EST



It tastes sweet.
IAWTP $ (none / 0) (#68)
by daveybaby on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 09:18:13 AM EST



[ Parent ]
YHBT (none / 0) (#175)
by the77x42 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:33:47 AM EST




"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

[ Parent ]
plz to be modbombing cts comments (1.00 / 7) (#42)
by loteck on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:31:42 AM EST

neopoptartism may have its day, but this day will not be it.

cts plz transfer your fanatic zeal to a more specialized subject matter that you dont sound like such an idiot on. ive heard bees are interesting?
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

plz to be sucking my large bulbous cock nt (1.00 / 4) (#44)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:35:45 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
So we should kill the conservatives? ;) (2.87 / 8) (#47)
by Hugh Jass on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 03:18:54 AM EST

Is not fighting them a real option?

Yes, it is a real option.  Military, absent a draft, it's about our only option.  A strike on Iran immediately imperils our logisitics in Iraq.  Our military planners know this.  Iran knows this.  About the only people who don't are the tough-guy posers who run our government.

That said, your point is valid.  Liberalism and progressive political thought is anathema  to the extremist authoritarian mindset.  But it's perhaps a liberal insight that we have more foreign policy options available to us than a stark choice between belligerance and isolationism. We should be doing everything we can to encourage the more liberal elements of Iranian society, and to discourage the nuclear ambitions of the leadership.  It's not clear to me how sabre-rattling helps us accomplish those goals.

We should not rule out the use of force when appropriate.  I would argue, however, that it's not appropriate in regard to Iran - at least not yet - and I question the capacity of the current administration to make smart choices in regard to foreign policy.


"In war the moral is to the physical, as three to one." - Bonaparte

i agree with you about iran (2.00 / 3) (#49)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 03:30:14 AM EST

but not on myanmar, zimbabwe, north korea

we should act militarily on them now

there is no hope for these countries via non miltary means


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I agree with you in the main, dude (2.25 / 4) (#70)
by Wen Jian on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 10:28:38 AM EST

But I think that if I were Iran i would feel naked without nukes, what with the huge support the Israeli nuke program had in the 60's and 70's (a UK civil servant sold them heavy water without even consulting a single MP). Unless Israel is left to sink or swim, I can see no justification for taking a harder line with any other nations.

Israel ist der Sieg des Fascismus.
It was an experiment in lulz. - Rusty
[ Parent ]

i agree, fuck israel (2.00 / 6) (#80)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:22:11 PM EST

i really don't like israel

problem is, on most days, i dislike israel's enemies even more

too much of the current debate on the middle east allows us only two choices:

  1. fuck zionist israel, support arab fascists
  2. fuck arab fascists, support zionist israel

can't we do it a third way? my way is:

fuck zionist israel, fuck arab fascists

seriously, fuck them all

i dislike religiously driven assholes, and militant muslims and militant jews on either side are being driven by religious imperative: "jerusalem is ours! it's in this stupid fucking dusty book! so kill the assholes who don't read our dusty book and squat on OUR land! it is OUR land because it is written in our dusty book! the dusty book gives us the right to ignore human rights!"

fuck them all

fuck israel

fuck hezbollah

fuck hamas

israel is after all, the last major western neocolonial experiment

but no matter how badly israel treated arabs, arab militants have repaid israelis with atrocities so perverted in all of human history it engenders them absolutely no empathy. suicide bombing is utterly perverse, it is so way over the line of justification according to any purpose, that it automatically negates any sympathy for the purpose you are fighting for with such a loathesome weapon

so fuck them all, they all lose

a global liberal platform has complete indifference on the question of israel/ palestine

both sides are driven by religious and racial hatred, and both sides have proven to be completely intrasigent and both sides have proven to do utterly contemptible indfensible vile things

show me a political and social force that disavows and FIGHTS EFFECTIVELY these atrocities on either side of the divide that can sway large scale opinion, and i would work with that force

but until then, i have nothing but contempt for the whining and howling coming from israel/ palestine, on either side

fuck

them

all

fuck israelis

fuck palestinians


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Drunken Rant (2.00 / 4) (#51)
by QuantumFoam on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:22:13 AM EST

There are two types of liberalism. The first is the kind CTS refers to in this article, the kind my free-market-loving, NAFTA- and CAFTA-Boosting economics professor referred to. Something that resembles libertarianism; the freedom of thought and action. The second is the kind that, in my city at least, passes smoking bans and mandates bicycle helmets for adults. The nanny-state political ideology. We really need to have different names for them, because it's confusing as hell.

CTS has a point. Liberals here are opposed to Bush and somehow come to the conlusion that they should support theocracy in derka-derkastan while whining about theocracy in the US.

- Barack Obama: Because it will work this time. Honest!

that's because... (2.50 / 2) (#65)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:16:59 AM EST

That's because there are very few "liberals" in the "classic liberal"/Jeffersonian liberal sense. Most of them are communists, socialists, or some hybrid.

And, I can't agree with your definition of CTS's "liberals", as he mentions communist groups which are aligned with "liberalism". I think that is a liberalism I very much do not want a part of or association with - no moreso than I'd want association with Nazi Germany.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Communism (2.50 / 4) (#52)
by Ward57 on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:47:49 AM EST

is not liberal. If you'd said socialism, you might have had a point

thank you, sorta. (2.33 / 3) (#64)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:14:37 AM EST

Thank you for making that first point.

However, Western "socalism" has more in common with  Leninism/Stalinism than not, in that they are all derivative political philosophies of Marxist philosophy. They all ascribe to the belief that government control can fix the ills of man, that capitalism (both political and economic - an innacurate and seemingly intentional pairing if I ever saw one) is bad, and that power should be given to the people.

Unfortunately, all these philosophies have been distorted and do not work in practice, as the mechanisms of achieving this all require state power, and state power results in control.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

You seem to fall into the trap (2.66 / 6) (#132)
by brain in a jar on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:06:44 AM EST

of thinking that if there is no powerful state, then people will be free, which just isn't the case.

The real choice (its not a true dichotomy but a sliding scale) is between state control or corporate control. In the absence of a strong state, wealth and power still have a tendency to concentrate in the hands of a few, who if left unchecked will use that power to enrich and empower themselves further at the expense of others.

If you want freedom, you have to trade of freedom from government interference (at least a democratic government theoretically has its peoples interests at heart) with interferance from corporations or other concentrations of wealth and power (e.g. warlords) which tend to have no interests in peoples welfare, except where this coincides with gathering more wealth and power.

The trade of between government/people power, and the power of corporations and warlords is, I believe, largely inescapable. The best we can do is have the people keep government on a short leash and use it as a watchdog to keep other dangerous accumulations of wealth and power in check i.e. through anti-trust law and normal law and order.


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

Maxism is not equal to Communism (none / 0) (#79)
by sye on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:14:21 PM EST

Mao and Lenin are lefties of Feudalism

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

The Problem of Positive Liberalism (2.00 / 6) (#53)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:18:04 AM EST

The problem with liberalism being "positive" (as opposed to being negative, and against things "conservatives" support) is that it has already been proven that the majority of things which are traditionally "liberal" are just thinly guised implimentations of Marxist ideals. Marxist ideals which have been repeatedly proven to fail in practice over the last century.

What we see in the media (and in your post) is a fundamental confusion of terms, which is part of the reason why you seem somewhat bemused at the fact that Bush and the conservatives are in opposition to Iran, while the liberals are not. While the Islamic leaders in Iran are conservative Muslims, conservative Islam has a fundamentally different perspective on government than American conservatives. In fact, the "conservatives" in Iran are more alike US Liberals than US Conservatives. Let me explain.

The Marxist ideals as perpetrated by liberals, like the so-called "conservative" stance you outline as belonging to the Islamic extremists, have the exact same perspective on government as the Islamist extremists! That is, both seek to convert the country's government and populace to a worldview (both political and personal) that is contrary to how the majority views the world. Both want to instigate widespread government control of all manners of a person's daily life, whether it's through a mosque in Iran, government healthcare, or overly-intrusive substance and material control.

Now, this is not to say that Western Liberalism (as you define it - it seems you're referring to American Liberalism, an entirely different beast) does not have many redeeming qualities, or that it is a perfect analogy for the governmental Islam in Iran. There are a great deal of good ideas within US Liberalism, they are simply overshadowed by a Marxist thought process.

Additionally, you've completely misdefined American conservativism. You're assuming that it is the backbone behind the "neocons" in power. Why do you think Bush's approval rating is so low? Certainly part of it has to do with the war, but I assure you that a sizeable portion of it is due to his domestic policy. It is far, far too liberal and overreaching for the majority of Americans, from border control, health care, public education, and a number of other topics.

Really, the entire spectrum of political definition in the United States is fairly fucked up. You'll find conservatives and liberals both, in many respects, ascribe to Marxist ideals and Jeffersonian ideals - ideals which are largely mutually exclusive. Once you get out of college, you will find that there are plenty of conservative athiests, and many Christian liberals.

However, for the most part, people simply don't bother to think through the various characteristics of their beliefs and assure that they are internally consistent. This is largely because people are willfully ignorant, and don't bother to read the actual accounts of history, instead believing what they read online or see on TV. This is why we've got people who believe in "traditional family values" yet support governmental expansionism or socialized medicine. It's why we've got people who try and restrict or redefine the 2nd Amendment while pushing the bounds of the 1st Amendment to the obscene (which is fine, as long as they're willing to take responsibility for their actions).

Your "fighting Marxists" are a joke. The reason there are so few of them is because the ideal failed. Marxism was fundamentally flawed as it did not take into account human nature. At all. It assumed there would not be totalitarian dictators - just ordinary people with a thirst for power, like Hillary Clinton or George Bush - who would see the vacuum of a leader and fill it. Need I remind you of the millions of people killed in genocide throughout the world in the name of Communism - people who's only crime, in many respects, was to disagree that the system of Communism works? You've got a completely dillusional and fantastical view of Communism, one that is not based on fact or history. Please rectify this.

Mark my words: come election time, more Democrats will be voted into office due to a large number of single-issue voters who have come to believe the war in Iraq is wrong and that we should pull out. I guarantee you we will see an ever-increasing amount of state control as a result.

(And for what it's worth, I lump Bush into this "more govenrment" Marxist camp, as most of the things he has done have indeed been inline with what Hitler has done, much of which was directly from the writings of Karl Marx. Expect to have the government to allow anothe disaster, through which it will gain even more power in the minds of the populace, allowing it to do whatever it so pleases. Keep in mind that both Bush and Kerry were and are a part of the The New American Century Project.)

As for Iran's "Liberals" regaining the upper hand? You're sadly mistaken. The time for any action in this regard was years ago, before the Iranian government started pushing the Liberals out of power. If you recall your history of WWII, we are currently at the rough parallel to a period of years after the establishment of both Imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany, when they were building up politically, economically, culturally for expansionist behavior.

The Iranian society, at this point, might be open to repair much as Germany and Japan were after World War II. But, being as Iran's official government has stated on multiple occasions that it desires and seeks after a war - a full-on collision of civilizations, cultures, and militaries - with the West, there is no practical alternative. We can either wait for them to make the first overt attack against America - likely nuclear, as they haven't got much else - or we can go in and take care of their government now. I see no other option to the scenario they have pressed upon.

Oh, and you want to talk about bigoted, walk into any public university course on Marxism, communism, or any other "liberal" philosophy, and ask them what they think of Conservatives, traditional values, or any number of other ideals which many people ascribe to. You'll get a mouthful, and, if you're taking the course and offer a contrary opinion, you'll likely receive a poor mark.

Let the liberalism you speak of wilt. It's caused more pain, suffering, economic hardship, and death amongst "the common man" than any other philosphy or political movement in recent history - and that includes World War II.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.

OH NOES COMMUNISTS (3.00 / 7) (#76)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:30:23 PM EST

You have absolutely no understanding of liberalism if you think it's co-opting Marxist philosophy.  Marxism came out of liberalism, not the other way around.

Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes might be a little   surprised to find that they're, in fact, Commies.

It's very clear that CTS is talking about liberalism in the accepted broad philosophical sense, and not the ill-concieved platforms of the American political parties.  

Your ridiculous fixation on the evils of Communist infiltration is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[ Parent ]

thank you, amen! (none / 1) (#78)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:05:47 PM EST

i even say that communism is whack in my story

i wish the jerkwad you responded to would function on the words i actually say rather than based on the decades-outdated stereotypes in his head

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 1) (#91)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:59:58 PM EST

These are not outdated "stereotypes in my head".

This describes socialism quite well in the abstract. Unfortunately it's not an article on socialism, it's one on "western liberalism".
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

ok, how about (none / 1) (#95)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 05:22:43 PM EST

gay marriage good
abortion rights good
evolution good
marijuana legality good
separation of church and state good
personal liberties good


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
good, +1 more... (2.00 / 2) (#104)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:29:58 PM EST

how bout the state has nothing to do with marriage at all? it's a civil arrangement, not a legal one. why should the state care who's fucking whom and where they're getting fucked?
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

italy, japan (2.00 / 2) (#108)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 08:29:59 PM EST

populations are declining there

meanwhile, in conservative societies, populations are exploding

every society should have an interest in providing incentives to propogate and continue the society

when they fail to do that, society dies

however, i agree with you, marriage is just a useless word

the issue is important, to procreate society via couplings, but how the issue is approached is bullshit

because there are plenty of married heterosexuals that don't produce offspring, and plenty of gays who adapt/ artificially inseminate

what i think the government should do in regards to marriage is completely ignore the ideology and focus on the offspring... regardless of where the offspring came from (naturally conceived/ adopted, etc.)

something like:

have 1 kid, get $20,000 a year
have 2 kids, get $30,000 a year
have 3 kids, get $10,000 a year
have 4 kids, pay $5,000 a year
have 5 kids, pay $10,000 a year

etc.

in this way, government can provide economic incentives for procreation, and economic punishments for overpopulation, and completely sidestep the whole ideological bullshit involved with marriage

social conservatives tell us marriage is important to be just be between a man and a woman to promote family values

so all you care about is the family then dear conservatives?

bullshit: put your money where your mouth is, and pay people for having kids, and shut the fuck up about the rest of your ideology

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

We don't need more people (2.33 / 3) (#129)
by brain in a jar on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:59:57 AM EST

What we do however need is a population that doesn't change in size too rapidly, this is an important distinction.

There is no inherent reason for the state to encourage people to procreate, it is after all a natural drive. The state should probably aim for a stable population in the short term, and decide on long term aims for population size based on the carrying capacity of the country.

So, while it is probably fair to say that most of the western democracies should encourage procreation and possibly immigration to keep their demographic problems at bay e.g. pension problems, there are plenty of other countries who should probably be working on restricting population growth to ensure that sufficient resources are available.


Life is too important, to be taken entirely seriously.
[ Parent ]

well no shit sherlock (2.00 / 2) (#145)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 12:11:13 PM EST

now how the fuck do expect to implement that without being branded a neocolonialist or a racist?

conservative religious societies have no problems breeding, and they have no interest in listening to you

welcome to reality: you have no authority

better work on getting some


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I think that (none / 1) (#160)
by levesque on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:11:38 PM EST

in general it's not a question of restricting growth but a question of reducing the promotion of growth.

[ Parent ]
it's a question (2.00 / 2) (#166)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:09:49 PM EST

of having no authority to do anything about growth, and societies that only care about unfettered growth for the sake of strongly continuing a creed

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
yes, absolutely (none / 0) (#193)
by CAIMLAS on Tue Sep 12, 2006 at 06:18:39 AM EST

Yes, I agree. It isn't the institution of marriage which I find useless and distasteful, it's the word itself, and how it has been institutionalized which I hate.

Aside from immigration and immigration families, the US is not meeting replacement, either. It's the case in most of the Western world - or close to it.

Without an expanding birth rate - regardless of other factors - there is no economic competition due to a lack of incentive to do so. It is imperative that a culture maintain a progressive birthrate.

Part of creating a healthy expanding society requires a child to grow up in a healthy, stable family. There are varying opinions on what that is, exactly, but my opinion is that it requires at least (but probably not more than) two parenting individuals of opposite sex, so as to teach their children gender roles (which are important, so that they do not become biologically confused, resulting in the succession of that genetic line).

if people want to do "whatever" on their own time, outside or inside of that social arrangement, fine.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

a simplification (1.33 / 3) (#93)
by CAIMLAS on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 05:07:53 PM EST

That's an over simplification of the matter.

Socialism is to classic liberalism as Islam is to Christianity and Judiasm; they're derivatives - or claim to be - but in their creation they took the most fundamental aspects of their ancestoral belief and destroyed them, instead chosing to simply use certain favorable characteristics of the original belief system in order to draw a parallel.

It's similar to how certain juice products claim "made with real fruit!" - yet only contain 1% "real fruit", the rest being artificial flavors and sugars.
--

Socialism and communism better explained by a psychologist than a political theorist.
[ Parent ]

Pfft (3.00 / 2) (#97)
by partialpeople on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:10:52 PM EST

So, even if it's completely off-topic, tell me how your example shows how communism has seized control of of modern liberalism.

If we are to follow your religious analogy, a mullah would be sitting in Rome.

[ Parent ]

Just a tad anachronistic, you think? (none / 1) (#161)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:31:29 PM EST

Or maybe The Communist Manifesto is really just a simple variation on the same themes found in Kant's What Is Enlightenment? I'm inclined to believe that the history of Europe in the 19th century provides plenty of reason to believe otherwise.

Although I guess to the monomanical libertarian there's really only room for one question: more or less?  

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
well, duh (1.14 / 7) (#73)
by minerboy on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 01:00:23 PM EST

The Liberals of the 60's and 70's are essentially gone, replaced by the baby boomers who hid their self loathing nihilistic philosophies behind the socialistic poicies of their elders. modern day Liberals are working as hard as possible to destroy the culture from which they sprang, like Oedipus on crack. They wish to destroy western civilization, even at the cost of their own destruction since it has produced their conservative enemies.

Conservatives on the other hand, wish to expand their reach. They are assimilating, not destroying. They like their culture, and want it to grow, and have dismissed the old liberal conscience of the founders, and become the raging neocon horde.

So there you have it, Accept your own empire, or fade into the mists of time. Ashame theres not a third way



there is a third way you fucktard (1.16 / 6) (#77)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 02:03:09 PM EST

  1. list your ideals

  2. fight for them

duh

just because you see only a few cynical defeatist stereotypes as your possible range of choices of behavior doesn't mean i have to


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I'm just one man (1.66 / 3) (#86)
by minerboy on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 03:27:54 PM EST

And am way to much of an Asshole to ever be a politician. So who might I vote for ? Can you name a movement, or even one politician, that isn't either a globalist neocon scum, or a self-destructive liberal weenie, or a Commie ?

. . . .

Other than Baldrson



[ Parent ]
i'm not a politician either you knob (none / 1) (#94)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 05:21:35 PM EST

just go with your beliefs, who gives a fuck about the rest?

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
A fat woman is better than an ideal.$ (none / 1) (#124)
by V on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 05:14:38 AM EST


---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens
[ Parent ]
Liberalism is the new conservatism. (2.22 / 9) (#90)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 04:58:23 PM EST

People are searching for a new model of open society. Liberalism is spent. It has no new ideas. It has no vitality. Freedom porn: every man for himself and against everyone else. Track his retinal flutter: reality shows -- cocaine energy -- and CSI and Law & Order around the clock -- security kitsch. Meanwhile technocrats tweak the treadmill so it runs another day, aging trust-fund brats take another home away, and liberals are sick about it but not smart enough to puke.

Liberalism: a chain of dehumanization and exploitation beginning with the quest for profit.

It's created a world that isn't fit for any living thing, including people. No one believes in it anymore except formally, as in they're for empty rituals like voting that signify commodity production and change nothing, idolaters before a golden statue of market populism. Democracy if we have not dispensed with it entirely is a case made more easily today for those who suffer on the outskirts of the globe than for the liberals who reject them as vulgar fundamentalists. What's so "democratic" about voting for a hairpiece atop an empty suit? Better a poor Lebanese Shiite who can get an audience with Nasrallah. Say what you will about the tenets of whatever comes after liberalism, in 10 or 20 years or 100, after the blood-letting, but at least it'll be an ethos people can cohere around. BMI-normal people. Two arms and two legs and a head. The US and UK: canaries in the coal mine. Listen: "tweet tweet tweet," warns CTS, "beards and burkhas five o'clock." Alas in the small openings between things the matrix is realigning. Can you hear it popping and fizzing? Sub-Planck-length bubbles of God's wit giving form to things unknown, the froth shapes airy nothing into bold new something. Eh, what's a poor liberal to do? Find a pretty girl to speak quietly at night with. Teach the little ones to farm organically.

I'm not crazy.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

wtf?! ;-P (1.66 / 3) (#96)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 05:59:54 PM EST

{a few paragraphs of total lunatic ranting}

then...

"I'm not crazy."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no yuo (2.75 / 4) (#103)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:27:42 PM EST

I am passing through a primordial landscape inscribed by logos with numbers and symbols and images, accumulating karma and listening to the trees. The postures of their bodies re-educate me.

Your world is schizophrenic: the personal and political experiments of young people/the wars and new systems of social control pursued by governments and corporations; the populist struggle of guerilla insurrectionists/the imperial death star action figures. Let the age turn, ○ x □, we're well done with this world.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

thank you, walt whitman nt (none / 1) (#105)
by circletimessquare on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 07:31:36 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Good but way too extreme trolling. (none / 1) (#123)
by BerntB on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 03:32:08 AM EST

What's so "democratic" about voting for a hairpiece atop an empty suit? Better a poor Lebanese Shiite who can get an audience with Nasrallah.
It is a fun argument to set equal signs between a democracy trying to build a working country -- and a militia paid by a foreign country to keep their local patsies popular, so they can do war-in-proxy wit low risk or retaliation.

Fun but way too extreme trolling to catch even me. :-)

It's created a world that isn't fit for any living thing, including people. No one believes in it anymore except formally, as in they're for empty rituals like voting that signify commodity production and change nothing, idolaters before a golden statue of market populism. Democracy if we have not dispensed with it entirely is a case made more easily today for those who suffer on the outskirts of the globe than for the liberals who reject them as vulgar fundamentalists.
As the old quote goes, capitalism is the worst possible way to organize a society, the only things worse are all other attempts.

A mature capitalistic and democratic society is the only known way to dependably avoid mass starvation and atrocities. Democracies don't make war on each others. Hell, we even have the right to have different opinions.

Weak troll. Well written, but way to extreme.

[ Parent ]

No argument with the thrust of this article (3.00 / 6) (#101)
by BottleRocket on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 06:30:11 PM EST

But any war against Iran precipitated by Western neocons would not be started with the lofty purpose of spreading liberalism to the region. You said it yourself:
This is the truth: liberals in the West have more in common with liberals in the Middle East than they do with conservatives in the West. And liberals in the Middle East have more in common with liberals in the West than they do with conservatives in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the current activities of bigotted conservatives on either side is driving a wedge between these two regions
Conversely, conservatives in the West have more in common with conservatives in the Middle East than they have with Western liberals, and they do a better job of recognizing that fact than liberals do. Any war started in Iran by conservative interests would not be to spread liberal values, only to protect an investment.

Are we doomed to trade Middle East liberalism for Western neocon special interests?

$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
. ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Yes I do download [child pornography], but I don't keep it any longer than I need to, so it can yield insight as to how to find more. --MDC
$ . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
. . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . * . . . . . *
. ₩ . . . . . ¥ . . . . . € . . . . . § . . . . . £
$ . . . . . $ . . . . . $ . . . . . $
$B R Σ III$

Good article (3.00 / 3) (#109)
by Gruntathon on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 10:01:26 PM EST

But are you sure Kuro5hin is the place for it? Maybe Wikipedia would have been better.
__________
If they hadn't been such quality beasts (despite being so young) it would have been a nightmare - good self-starting, capable hands are your finest friend. -- Anonymous CEO
Face it CTS, you're a neocon (2.80 / 10) (#110)
by Social Democrat on Wed Sep 06, 2006 at 11:33:45 PM EST

Sure you try to dress it up with the language of a liberal which you may actually believe, but you are a neocon all the same.  You want to shove American style democracy down the throats of the rest of the world.  The problem with that is that the rest of the world is not American.  You ignore the history and culture of every place outside of America just like a typical neocon.

------
The US is fucked up, diseased, mentally unstable & psychologically unhealthy. Its food supply is tainted, polluted, & full of chemical crap. Even worse, the US is trying to ruin the rest of the world.
it just blows my mind (1.00 / 6) (#111)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 12:07:37 AM EST

me: "hi, i am supporting the notion of global liberalism, free of nationalism"

you: "why are you such a conservative nationalist?"

!?

dear fuckknob: do you have a fucking brain? can you fucking read?

now: try to write a reply again, but this time, try firing a neuron or two first

k thx

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

no, it's liberal (2.75 / 8) (#116)
by Delirium on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:43:26 AM EST

Liberalism has always held such views. American colonials travelled to France to fight against the French monarchy; the U.S. set up a liberal democracy in Japan; etc. Just because a handful of conservatives have started using the same rhetoric, and a handful of liberals have gone off the deep end of moral relativism, doesn't mean it's no longer the liberal position.

[ Parent ]
I would add (2.66 / 6) (#118)
by Delirium on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:51:47 AM EST

If anything, the major moral problem with liberalism today is that it's moved far too much to the old conservative-nationalist "let the ruling class in each country decide its own affairs", often egged on by (also conservative-style) concerns of realpolitik. Why don't we support the Kurds in Turkey, for example? 1) We support the power of the Turkish state to oppress its own people in its own territory, more an 18th-century monarchist position than a liberal position; and 2) the Turkish state is a useful ally.

[ Parent ]
Are you really arguing that (none / 1) (#134)
by BerntB on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:10:01 AM EST

I don't disagree with your position, but I wonder about some of what you imply.

Are you really arguing that many governments in countries didn't use realpolitik consistently for a long period of time?

Sometimes a real fool idealist gets elected by mistake, like Jimmy Carter in USA, but they seem to learn quite fast. Do you have examples?

The Kurds, for instance, will support the US because it is in their interest. The USA needs the Kurds, but the Kurds need USA more. Let us hope the EU negotiations will be a break through those poor bastards.

[ Parent ]

I suspect... (2.80 / 5) (#155)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:14:33 PM EST

...that Delirium had mind something like the old split between the liberals and the conservatives over colonial adminstrative policies within the British Empire. The liberal approach was a rationalist and universalist one, as embodied by the likes of J.S. Mill, and aimed at liberating the natives from the oppresive bonds of their culturally induced ignorance and servitude. The conservative approach, on the other hand, was primarily characterized by building useful alliances with the existing powers of clan and community, and aimed at pacification and containment by reinforcing the strength of the staus quo.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
THANK YOU! AMEN! nt (none / 0) (#125)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:20:44 AM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
i am a turkey club sandwich (1.33 / 3) (#126)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:26:44 AM EST

more importantly, if i say "GLOBAL LIBERALISM" and i mean "GLOBAL LIBERALISM" then maybe what i am about is...

drum roll please...

"GLOBAL LIBERALISM"

crazy wacky enough concept for you you fucking turd?

please to be reading the last thread in which i successfully defended myself from the likes of you: another "you say you stand for something but i know what you stand for better than you do, and it is the exact opposite of what you say" retard

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/9/5/172111/7190/4#4

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/9/5/172111/7190/28#28

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/9/5/172111/7190/34#34

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2006/9/5/172111/7190/39#39

gee asshole: IF I SAY I STAND FOR SOMETHING, WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF SAYING I STAND FOR THE OPPOSITE OF THAT?!

is that wacky enough a fucking concept for you fucking piece of shit?

that i fucking know what i fucking stand for better than you do?

what a blind fucking prejudicial asshole!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You're confusing liberal (2.75 / 4) (#142)
by wiredog on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:53:55 AM EST

with leftist/socialist (which is no more liberal than, say, neo-conservativism).

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
To sum up... (2.83 / 6) (#119)
by felixrayman on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:57:56 AM EST

So, when citizens of the USA see a theocracy in Iran acquiring Nuclear weapons, they will be able to look to the liberals in their country and see an answer for that: opposition to that, by force if necessary

Which countries' nuclear (oops sorry "Nuclear", don't want to discourage your use of capital letters, however inappropriate) weapons programs should cause us hysterical concern (check all that apply):

_ Israel (gets in bizarre random wars on a biweekly basis)
_ France (is, well, France...who knows what sort of people they could surrender their nukes to)
_ Pakistan (it is argued that as bad as dictatorship is, an elected government in Pakistan would be even worse...and that almost sounds plausible)
_ India (is, well, India)
_ Iraq (just wait....they'll find them)
_ The United States (has military bases in over 100 countries and has nuked civilians for fun and sport)
_ Iran (hasn't started a war with a neighbor since the 1700s)

Of course, the prescribed "liberal" approach suggested above by the local dumbass can best be summed up as, "Not only are we going to Pakistan, Nancy Pelosi, we're going to North Korea and Iran and San Francisco and Libya and Afghanistan, and then we're going to Iraq, to take back the weapons we sold them! Yeaaaaagggggh!!!"

By which I mean, of course, that you are a fucking retard.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

Iran arms terror organizations $ (2.00 / 3) (#122)
by BerntB on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 03:21:45 AM EST



[ Parent ]
yeah i'm a retard (1.50 / 6) (#127)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:38:13 AM EST

because i don't trust

A FUCKING THEOCRACY

WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

NO REALLY ASSHOLE:

A FUCKING THEOCRACY

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html

Article 1

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of  Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic  justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic  calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic  calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of  eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji'  al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:
1.continuous ijtihad of the fuqaha' possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis off the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Ma'sumun, upon all of whom be peace;

but i'm so sorry! obviously i'm just afraid of muslims right? when i say I DON'T HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM WITH MUSLIMS AT ALL, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEOCRACY then what i REALLY mean is i have a problem with muslims, right?

and i'm so sorry! that pesky usa with its separation fo church and state, we all know that's the REAL theocracy, right?

i mean why let BIG DUMB OBVIOUS RETARDED SIMPLE FACTS get in the way of our HYPERBOLE and...

drum roll please...

HYSTERIA

get in our way of moronic kneejerk anti-usa attitudes, right?

i mean we have to hate the usa, to the point of embracing a FUCKING THEOCRACY WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

because that makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE FROM A LIBERAL POINT OF VIEW, RIGHT?

jesus fucking mohammad on a pogo stick

you braindead moronic retards

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

How can you argue (2.50 / 4) (#128)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:57:40 AM EST

That France having nuclear weapons is the same as Iran having nuclear weapons?

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

he can argue it (1.00 / 2) (#133)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:08:10 AM EST

because he thinks his raging anti-usa hysteria and hyperbole is a suitable replacement for moronic pro-usa hysteria and hyperbole

the world needs LESS braindead partisans, not MORE

the mirror image of stupidity is MORE STUPIDITY

the asshole doesn't recognize that SIMPLE BIG DUMB OBVIOUS FACTS is the antidote to partisanship

but this won't stop the retard from thinking EMBRACING A FUCKING THEOCRACY WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS is a fucking liberal pov!

(smacks forehead)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

He's a moron. (2.00 / 5) (#141)
by wiredog on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:51:37 AM EST



Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
And yet (none / 1) (#143)
by CivisHumanus on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 11:55:28 AM EST

you can tolerate Pakistan having nuclear weapons ?
How does that work again ?

[ Parent ]
i can't tolerate the pakistanis having nukes (2.00 / 3) (#144)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 12:08:20 PM EST

i can't tolerate france having nukes

i can't tolerate the usa having nukes

I CAN'T TOLERATE NUKES

WE SHOULD GET RID OF ALL THEM

NOT PROLIFERATE THEM!

why aren't we talking about how to get rid of usa/ ussr nukes?

why are we fucking talking about why its ok for fucking THEOCRACY to get its hands on them!?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

why? (none / 0) (#192)
by speek on Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 03:36:10 PM EST

What would be the advantage of not having nukes? You must know that if we thought it necessary, we can make a new one in a matter of days. Nukes provide a sovereign nation some hard-to-argue-with sovereignty, therefore everyone wants them. Denying them is a source of rancor that can never possibly end, nor can we succeed forever in preventing countries from acquiring them. It means always fighting the next round of nuclear proliferation, losing, and creating enemies along the way. Therefore, it would seem the only good option would be to take an almost 180-degree approach - respect other countries' desires for security and accept they have a right to sovereignty.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

you're utterly daft (none / 0) (#197)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 12:09:31 AM EST

as if a nuclear warhead's only potential purpose is sovereignty protection

i can imagine a few other uses, no?

oh, right, i'm a false alarmist: we should trust a fundamentalist theocracy with nukes right?

gee... ever hear of FALSE COMPLACENCY?!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

You didn't address the issues I raised (none / 0) (#198)
by speek on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 10:15:59 AM EST

All you have is your alarm - you have no viable plan. My point was that our current ways of dealing with proliferation are making things even worse. And yes, things can get worse. What is your response to that? I can imagine all kinds of things - but they are not relevant.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

yeah all i have is my alarm (none / 0) (#199)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 01:06:07 PM EST

A FUNDAMENTALIST THEOCRACY THAT FUNDS TERRORISM THREATENING TO WIPE OUT OTHER COUNTRIES WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

yeah, boy, i'm such the false alarmist

truly nothing to worry about here

what a kookbag i am, everything is totally a-ok


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

But what about an effective plan? (none / 0) (#203)
by speek on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 09:34:20 PM EST

Alarm with no plan is panic. Alarm with a bad plan causes greater harm. AND CAPS CAN't DISGUISE YOUR FAILURE TO ADDRESS MY QUESTION. dweeb.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Them as well [nt] (none / 1) (#177)
by nebbish on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 06:25:18 AM EST


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

It's not (2.00 / 3) (#171)
by eavier on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:22:39 PM EST

Iran is an unstable theorcracy who should not have them.

I don't trust the French though. Not only did they smuggle agents into my country and take out the flagship of Greenpeace but they were also selling exocets to argentina while their supposed ally across the ditch was fighting them.

Their women are hot though.

Whatever you do, don't take it into your house. It's probably full of Greeks. - Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Ufology Doktor in da house

[ Parent ]

This is good, and I broadly agree (2.50 / 2) (#130)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:01:36 AM EST

However, a big part of the reason US liberals aren't doing anything about the Middle East is that they aren't in power. In power I'm pretty sure they have little choice but to engage.

It's always easy to be in opposition, and just bitch and whine. Most people don't see through that, but you have. However, you've missed the point that in power they'd have to change. Bitching and whining wouldn't be enough.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

the point is (2.00 / 2) (#135)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:11:03 AM EST

how do they get back in power

bitching and whining means they'll never be back in power

i want the liberals to be back in power

so i want them to come to grips with some obviously liberal positions on world topics that conservatives embrace for whatever reason, and they should to, out of simple liberal foundation principles

right now, liberals embracing a theocracy with nuclear weapons is like me saying "don't put your hands in the fire" and them putting there hands in the fire, just because they have to do the opposite of what i say out of spite

hello???????????

how is that approach working for you?????

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

OK, yeah, I see what you mean [nt] (none / 1) (#139)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:26:17 AM EST


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

West? this is only the US you're talking about (2.85 / 7) (#136)
by boxed on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:20:51 AM EST

The conservative vs liberal line does not exist in large parts of the west, for example in the nordic countries where the line is between conservative-liberal and socialists (the latter being in power normally). Your entire article seems utterly alien and incomprehensible to me, because it talks of a world view quite different from the one I live in.

uh... you live in the world don't you? (1.00 / 6) (#137)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:22:30 AM EST

so do you have an opinion on whether or not iran should have nuclear weapons?

ok, so how would you label that opinion of yours?

ok, welcome to the "alien" debate

(snicker)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I would label it anti-nuclear holocaust (2.00 / 2) (#179)
by boxed on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 09:34:24 AM EST

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative? In the original sense of the word "conserve" it clearly means I am conservative. But such a holocaust would seriously infringe on peoples liberties, so that would make me a liberal. Of course, wanting to avoid death and mayhem goes across all party lines and just makes me a human.

So there you have it, I label this a "human" opinion.

[ Parent ]

well i have no argument with you there (none / 1) (#182)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 04:50:28 PM EST

as a liberal, i consider a liberal attitude a human one, and a social conservative attitude to be anti-humanistic

so how about i call you a salami sandwich and you call me a toilet bowl cleaner and therefore get rid of this whole notion of "proper" labelling and just agree to be happy that we're on the same side, whatever that side is supposed to be called?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Democracy is the problem (2.42 / 7) (#147)
by IHCOYC on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 12:51:27 PM EST

Iran is one of the more democratic countries in Muslim Asia. As you note, they have at least some measure of tolerated political dissent, and at least some opponents of the religious hardliners have a voice in government.

Unfortunately, democracy is only workable where you have an easygoing and tolerant people, brought up in habits of civic virtue and to respect diversity. Some people are still savages and don't have the necessary virtues to make a livable democracy. As such, the results of free and open elections in Iran are going to be about as ugly as, say, free and open elections in Alabama.

The people voted in a nationalist who "embodies their values" and proclaims public pieties. A lengthy military occupation and colonial regime in Iran would be necessary to have a chance to change this. We will have to pay the money cost in supply logistics and the human cost in dead U.S. soldiers to achieve this goal. It isn't impossible, it's been done before, but it will require a substantial investment that I doubt the USA is willing to make.

As to Alabama, we pulled the army out about 120 years too early. If we lacked the will to fix Alabama, we aren't going to have the will to fix every Muslim country in Asia.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit G

Iran's problem is lack of democracy (2.83 / 6) (#148)
by Delirium on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:00:49 PM EST

Iran didn't really elect its current leadership; they were electing reformers. The reason a hard-line leadership has come back into power is precisely lack of democracy: The undemocratic Guardian Council vetoed the candidacies of most of the reformers, thereby allowing the hardliners to win by default.

If the country were more democratic, they would currently have a much more palatable government, dominated by reformers.

[ Parent ]

iran is democratic? (1.50 / 4) (#149)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:18:37 PM EST

so if the pope and pat robertson got together and gave the choices you can choose from for your next leader, would you consider that democracy?

THAT'S HOW IRAN WORKS YOU FUCKING MORON

YOU CONSIDER THAT DEMOCRACY?!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

How is this different. . . (2.50 / 2) (#151)
by IHCOYC on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 02:13:08 PM EST

. . . from the United States, where because of the winner take all system, the coalitions of vested interests and "activist" ijjits that call themselves the Democrat and Republican parties decide who our candidates will be? There are meaningful differences between the Pope and Pat Robertson, and there may be meaningful differences between the Republicans and Democrats, but there's an entire spectrum of unrepresented opinion here as well.

What I actually said is that "Iran is one of the more democratic countries in Muslim Asia." Granted that this sets the bar fairly low, I continue to think it has some meaning.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit G
[ Parent ]

That was not really a serious question? (3.00 / 2) (#152)
by BerntB on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 02:30:20 PM EST

How is this different. . from the United States
NY Times, Washington Post. There is transparency and serious scrutiny of the politicians in the USA. Accountability.

You might e.g. complain about lobbying implemented as officially stamped graft, but it is the same in other countries afaik -- but here it is more beneath the table.

[ Parent ]

i know, scary (1.00 / 2) (#158)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:50:30 PM EST

that the fucker your responding too even considers such a question of comparison is frightening


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
what's really frightening ... (none / 0) (#196)
by icastel on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 03:50:38 PM EST

... is that you don't even see it.  What are really the choices? republican or democrat.  very, very few other people have a chance to enter the race, let alone win it.  the two-party system has become a single-party one, stagnant.  it's kind of like the tale of the two competing shopkeepers with the interconnected shops.  really just a single store with two different facades.


-- I like my land flat --
[ Parent ]
oh. my. god. (1.33 / 3) (#157)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:49:26 PM EST

you're serious?


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
Yes (3.00 / 3) (#172)
by IHCOYC on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 09:27:43 PM EST

Do you really imagine that meaningful change could be accomplished by electing more Democrats than Republicans? Seriously, was the U.S. government more wisely guided, or less corrupt, when Clinton was in the White House?

The burning issues my TV talks about seem to revolve around showering more public money on old folks via Medicare and Medicaid. A candidate who ran on things that mattered, like ending the "war on drugs," reversing the corrupt bankruptcy "reform" or the corrupt copyright extension would be dead in the water. The system doesn't have room for those opinions. I don't see how mere voting could change anything.

So yes, I'm inclined to give the Iranians the benefit of a doubt here.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit G
[ Parent ]

my mouth hangs open (1.66 / 3) (#173)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 10:20:44 PM EST

are you SERIOUSLY comparing ANY of the problems you've outlined above with a fucking THEOCRACY PICKING YOUR CANDIDATES TO CHOOSE FROM

hello???????????????????????

"well i don't care if the neighbor IS stabbing his wife, we can't agree on what tv channel to watch, so our problems are just as bad"

WTF???????!!!!!!!!!!!!


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

I see. . . (3.00 / 2) (#178)
by IHCOYC on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 07:50:33 AM EST

You are the choir director of outrage, and I am not singing in tune. So here goes take 47: Theocracy is bad, m'kay? Don't do theocracy. Better? In Iran, acceptable candidates are chosen by elites that don't represent the gamut of positions taken by the governed. Our system is not terribly different. How many self-proclaimed atheists are there in the U.S. House or Senate?
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit G
[ Parent ]
7 (2.33 / 3) (#184)
by SnowBlind on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 06:07:41 PM EST

There are 7 athiests in the Senate.

I shall leave it as an exercise for the student as to WHICH 7.

There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
[ Parent ]

dude (1.00 / 2) (#185)
by circletimessquare on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 06:41:12 PM EST

anyone can run for president in the usa

if they aren't picked because not enough people agree with them, that's called DEMOCRACY YOU TWAT

THEY DON'T HOLD OFFICE

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET VOTES!

now in a country where the reformers are systematically disallowed form running EVEN IF THEY ARE POPULAR WITH THE PEOPLE, THAT'S NOT DEMOCRACY

THAT FUCKING DIFFERENCE MEANS

A LOT

YOU STUPID BLIND ASSHOLE

"In Iran, acceptable candidates are chosen by elites that don't represent the gamut of positions taken by the governed. Our system is not terribly different."

my mind just hangs open in shock

how someone like you can be so utterly blind and stupid as to reality

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Iran is a tricky situation... (2.83 / 6) (#150)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 01:54:36 PM EST

This will probably sound retarded to many of you, but hear me out...

Ahmadinejad is not the real power in Iran, the mullahs are. Right now with the US making him into such a huge boogeyman, Ahmadinejad is gaining clout with the hardline religious for taking a stand against the west.

In the meantime, Ahmadinejad is not the hardline Islamic fundamentalist we suspect he is. He has been pushing through social reforms liberalizing aspects of their society. You know, like allowing women to go to soccer matches and such. Sure, he talks some pretty horrific shit about Israel, but what leader in the middle east doesn't?

I say our approach should be two pronged: keep Dubya and Ahmadinejad trading pissy rhetoric towards each other, all the while making it clear that the American left will be more sympathetic towards his regime and may stay Bush's hand if Iran makes some efforts towards social reform.

I'm not too worried about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. They are still a decade away from having even the same capabilities as North Korea. And if they had them, why would they use them offensively?

You must be joking (2.40 / 5) (#153)
by BerntB on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 02:31:57 PM EST

Have you missed that the Iranian president yesterday called for clearing out "liberal elements" from the universities?!

There are data points back and forth, but the priests seem to be taking a firmer and firmer grip on the Iranian society. Note that it was popular protests that forced the theocrats to let women see some sports.

[ Parent ]

What is to be done? (2.75 / 8) (#156)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 06:45:02 PM EST

I've found Mohsen Sazegara's article Iran's Road to Democracy to be quite interesting.

The problem:

Those in power in Iran have created a fascist version of Islam - an absolutist and authoritarian system. Everything has to be unified, singular, one, a total state...

The impossibility of reform became apparent only two years after [Khatami's] election. The problem is that the underlying framework of the existing constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is structurally incompatible with achieving the goals the reformers have set - democracy, human rights, and secular pluralism. In this constitution, the leader is all-powerful. He can ratify everything and can veto anything - and the people are at his mercy.

Article 4 of the constitution says that no law, statute, or order in the country can be against Islam. The six clerics who are the main part of the Council of Guardians granted themselves the authority to interpret what is and is not against Islam. The leader ratifies them.

No democracy can be made out of Iran's constitutional law. Iran's problems are essential to the nature of the regime. And so it must be changed. This is the lesson of "reform".

The role of the West:

The referendum movement for freedom and democracy in Iran needs international support - moral, intellectual, and organisational. We do not need financial support. We would never compromise ourselves by accepting money from a foreign government; if you do that, you are doing their work rather than yours.

Another source of foreign support might be from intellectuals, writers, artists, poets, playwrights, singers, novelists, philosophers. If they backed the referendum movement, it would help Iranian people gain the self-confidence they need.

This psychological dimension is crucial. Iranians believe that for any movement to be successful it must have the support of the international community. This is the first time in our recent history that Iranians have thought this way. The reason is that the regime is autocratic: it concentrates all power in its hands. It can harass everybody, close down shops, shut newspapers, block websites. Many Iranians feel opposition is useless in the face of this. So they want international help.

But this help should not be military. Some Iranians call American forces the "soldiers of democracy". It is widely believed in Iran that Britain supports the mullahs and the United States wants Iran free. I tell students in many universities that I don't agree. We need democracy, but not by means of an invasion. We must grow it ourselves, through civil society, participation in social and political affairs - not through military force.

And the heart of the matter:

The minimal theory of Islam

The support of western intellectuals would be especially important to our young generation. So far, leftist thinkers and writers have paid little attention to Iran. In any case, anti-Americanism, anti-westernism, anti-imperialism doesn't speak to our struggle. Young Iranians are reading the work of Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt. These thinkers are all available in Persian.

My generation thought about revolution and nothing more. But now Iranians are thinking about liberalism: Kant and neo-Kantianism. A new generation of Iranian scholars has studied the philosophy of science and religion. As a result, new ideas are emerging about a theme that figures centrally in Iran's national conversation: the conflict between tradition (not just our religion, Islam, but our poetry and literature, our rituals and culture) and modernity.

The place of Islam itself in our public life is central to the task of bridging this conflict. The strongest motivation for me is Islam itself. But precisely because I am a deeply religious person, I am also a secularist who believes in the separation of state and mosque.

In Iran we need a minimal theory of religion, not the maximum theory the Islamic Republic employs. A minimal theory of Islam or religion is the opposite of Islamism. When President Khatami started to argue for a religious democracy, he showed that he understands neither civil society nor democracy. Democracy is democracy.

This regime has done so many bad things to our country in the name of religion. As a result, young people in Iran are turning away from religion. If that's Islam, they say, we don't want it. So the divorce between Islam and the state is not only for the sake of human rights and democracy, but for Islam itself. We want to restore religion to its essence, our belief in God, something beautiful in our heart - but not in the state or the law.

The result would be that religion is returned to people. Each person can have his or her own religion, and respect the rights of others to have theirs. The minimal theory of Islam says that Islam should be about living one's life, not running society or ruling the state. That is not the task of Islam. The main task of Islam is to invite people into God and into his light. This does not require a politics of Islam, an economics of Islam, a social affairs of Islam - the maximum theory of Islam, or Islamism. You don't need the state to impose religion.

The new paradigm that revolves around liberalism, democracy, pluralism, and human rights is completed by secularism. Its embodiment in a new constitution will be the work of Iranians ourselves. But to ease its birth, we want and need the support of international civil society. We are in a global era where borders are being transcended. We need global support.

A little naive perhaps, but it's nice to know that Tehran is home to chaps like Sazegara and not just the likes of Ahmadinejad.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


dude (none / 1) (#159)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:02:57 PM EST

that was some great fucking stuff, thanks for adding it to the discussion, it's certainly better my story above!

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
I thought you might like it (2.25 / 4) (#162)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 07:34:15 PM EST

Check out some of the other articles on Iran they are hosting there at Open Democracy. Good stuff.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
And then Iran joins EU together with Israel? :-) (2.00 / 4) (#163)
by BerntB on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 08:15:29 PM EST

Well, a man can hope. If Turkey might qualify, then Iran should have a lower threshold.

As an external viewer, it seems the Iranian priests starts international trouble to have external enemies. The traditional trick to unite a nation which hates its leaders.

There was a tv program in Swedish state tv tonight about different muslims, from extremists arguing for sharia laws, "sane" people from a Swedish perspective -- and all the way to women which had refused to wear the black sheets and spent years in jail where they had been maimed and gang raped.

[ Parent ]

The way I read it... (2.50 / 2) (#181)
by cr8dle2grave on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 12:00:12 PM EST

Yes, belligerence and bellicosity from outside will only further encourage the seige mentality of the Iranians, which is the source of the Mullahs power.

The EU? I dunno...something tells me I won't live to see either Iran or Israel join the EU. Actually, I don't suspect I'll live to see a common EU foreign and defense policy either.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Iranian Dissident won't meet with Bush (1.66 / 3) (#164)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 08:40:13 PM EST

Interestingly enough, Iranian liberals don't actually want to be bombed.  Click.

But I hope the U.S. does bomb Iran because that will be the end of our stupid empire.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

when will you lose your obsession with the usa? (1.00 / 2) (#165)
by circletimessquare on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 08:53:01 PM EST

move on, it's so passe

deal in ideas, not tribes


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

On Liberalism (2.75 / 4) (#174)
by the77x42 on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:31:56 AM EST

I always viewed Liberalism in the middle of the spectrum between Conservatism and Socialism. In Canada, the party deemed 'Liberals' used to represent the Liberalist viewpoint. This was decades ago. Now the Socialist parties have been moved further to the left, while the Liberals have eaten up a lot of Conservatist views (or vice-versa). There is a widening of the gap in the political spectrum, and it is unfortunate.

The media always love to polarize views, and the Liberal view was once the happy medium. The general public, at least in Canada, are apathetic to these polarized views, and thus the Liberals were very popular. Preying on this apathy, conservative corporations have pulled the Liberal view into the right-wing spectrum. Voters still favour the Liberals as a matter of custom, but slowly the Liberalist viewpoint is being drawn closer to Conservatism than most voters would acknowledge.

On the Federal level, this might not be as true for a province like BC, which is growing at a rapid pace. The influx of immigrants brought in under previous Liberal regimes still feel allegance to those who opened the doors for them, even though the current party and its views are entirely different from what they were when they first entered the country.

It is by this growth, apathy, and custom, that conservatives are able to sneak in, blurring the Liberal/Conservative line on the political specturm.

Perhaps polarizing world politics into Liberalism/Conservatism is falling prey to the same oversight that is happening in parts of Canada. Liberalism is dead; long live Socialism!


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

+1 CTS, -1 promotes librealism??? I abstain! (1.80 / 5) (#176)
by akostic on Fri Sep 08, 2006 at 02:51:15 AM EST


--
"After an indeterminate amount of time trading insane laughter with the retards, I grew curious and tapped on the window." - osm
Brilliant article (3.00 / 2) (#191)
by wytcld on Sat Sep 09, 2006 at 08:57:05 AM EST

And the responses show where some of the problems are. The sort of liberalism that is in trouble in Iran is a matter of sophistication - of having a broad culture wherein many largely-positive narratives intertwine for each individual. Conservatisms of every variety (including Marxist and Fundamentalist) are essentially single-narrative mindsets.

And there's part of the problem. Civilization requires sophistication (also known as hipness in some circles). And civilized people respect the ancestry of the many threads of thought and art and feeling which their cultures allow them to combine into a modern sensibility. But those threads themselves often derive from pre-civilized, monomonical, conservative cultures. So the civilized person most often respects, for instance, religions, even when those very religions are the basis for Fundamentalist monocultures like the clergy in Iran want which are the very antithesis of current civilized sophistication.

However, because liberalism is at base a matter of hipness - a matter of having a higher (which is what "hip" means) level of personal civilization - everyone who's less hip tends to resent you. Thus we see all the decidedly unhip comments littering this discussion, from people who resolutely prefer one brand of regressive fundamentalism or another.

To be "liberal" means to be cultured in freedom. It requires both culture and freedom. The culture required is rich and various - not just the part supported by government arts subsidies. It's what a traditional "liberal arts" education aspires to provide. And that's why the Iranians want to fire all the liberal professors. The only way to destroy Islamic fascism other than killing tens of millions of it followers is to liberalize the youth of those nations. But our current American leadership is itself Fundamentalist, so can't coherently embrace the defense of world-wide liberalism. If we don't reverse our own decline here, a war killing tens of millions will become a necessity. Thus there is no more pressing world need than the spreading of real hipness, true liberalism.

Define your terms. (3.00 / 3) (#195)
by Entendre Entendre on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 02:28:22 AM EST

Are you talking about the liberals who believe that more government can solve any problem, or are you talking about the liberals who believe that the government should stop trying to regulate stuff like drugs and prostitution and assisted suicide?

Are you talking about the conservatives who believe in smaller government to maximize individual freedoms, or are you talking about the conservatives who believe that government should regulate private lives under the guidance of the church?

--
Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.

Hmm (none / 1) (#200)
by The Diary Section on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:40:36 AM EST

Your continuing tendency to view the world via a sort of American-centric praxis contiues to amuse but it isn't in reality very helpful. America is the only super-power but it has an incredibly abnormal political system consisting of a centre-right party and a slighly more right-wing party battling it out over trivia via personality politics. What most Americans would refer to as a "conservative" or a "liberal" is utterly meaningless to 99% of the remaing world population. Conservatives have no interest in the "conservative" agenda you describe (this is precisely why they are conservatives in fact), Liberals similarly will have no truck with the remainder. Rather like MC I tell you this each and every time and you don't listen. And like MC you think you are enlightening the world but really you are just talking to yourself.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
get this through your thick fucking skull: (none / 0) (#201)
by circletimessquare on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 05:22:56 PM EST

MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE USA

FUCK THE USA

MY ARGUMENT IS A HUMAN ARGUMENT

THE ONLY ONE SUPPLYING THE INABILITY TO VIEW THE WORLD OTHER THAN THROUGH THE PRISM OF THE USA

IS

YOU

YOU STUPID BLIND FUCK

IDEAS

NOT TRIBES

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

World calling circletimessquare (none / 0) (#202)
by alba on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 04:52:29 AM EST

Fuck off, yankee twat.

[ Parent ]
world calling natinalistic moron (none / 0) (#204)
by circletimessquare on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:02:55 AM EST

i'm not a yankee. i'm a human being. that's all i need to say what i say. you haven't begun to see what i really am, or touch what i am saying. this isn't a soccer game, dear stupid drunken hooligan

xoxoxoxoxox

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

ok (none / 0) (#205)
by The Diary Section on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 07:34:46 PM EST

Rather like MC I tell you this each and every time and you don't listen. And like MC you think you are enlightening the world but really you are just talking to yourself.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
you are incapable (none / 0) (#207)
by circletimessquare on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 01:50:00 PM EST

of looking at the world except through the prism of nationalism

you ahve the probelm here

just look at your sig: nationalistic

your mind is closed, your eyes are shut

i'm light years beyond you in enlightment

now go ahead and respond to me about "you americna this, you americna that"

it's laughable. you can't even beign to fathom where i am coming from, to look athte world without nationalism, because in your mind, its impossible not to consider that tribal ethnocentric unjust folly

you're just a sad pointless empty soccer hooligan

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]

Global Liberalism versus Local Liberalism | 206 comments (185 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!