[moki]

The Myth of Stability
Oct 28, 2005
by Clifford D. May
In just a few days, I'm to debate at the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College, Dublin.
Trinity was founded in 1592. The Philosophical Society – better known as the “Phil” -- is of more recent vintage: It traces its lineage back to the 17th century.

Those who have preceded me at this forum include Alexis de Tocqueville and Bertrand Russell. Then again, in recent years the smarmy fanatic George Galloway, the Holocaust denier David Irving and the porn star Ron Jeremy also have been guests.

[Text of the presentation:]

.....

The resolution I'll be debating: “This house believes that George W. Bush is a danger to world stability.” The members of the Phil presumably came to me because they could find no one in Europe willing to publicly dispute this widely accepted notion.

And, upon reflection, I'm not sure I will either. Perhaps President Bush does endanger stability. But is “stability” really the goal that free peoples should pursue?

The world has not experienced much stability in recent times. Just ask the Yugoslavs or the Soviets or the Ottomans or the Austro-Hungarians. The 20th century was a period of bloody struggles as aggressive totalitarian movements – Fascism, Nazism, Japanese Militarism and Communism – sought to terminate the democratic experiment.

There were then, as there are now, many who opposed such conflicts and urged preemptive capitulation. Recall that on February 9th, 1933, the Oxford Union approved the resolution “that this House refuses in any circumstances to fight for King and Country."

Hitler must have been encouraged to hear that. Just a few months later he would begin burning books in Berlin. With the notable exception of Winston Churchill, most Europeans were less outraged than intimidated – they were unwilling to endanger the “stability” that followed the first global war. The result: Within a decade most of the continent was under Hitler's jackboot.

To outsiders, the Middle East may have appeared stable before George W. Bush came to office. In fact, it has long been a region where people are deprived of basic human rights, and where vast oil wealth is enjoyed by ruling classes while masses endure grinding poverty.

To preserve the mirage of Middle Eastern stability has meant permitting Syria to occupy Lebanon and letting extremist mullahs stealthily develop nuclear weapons.
A book just published in France, “Le Livre Noir de Saddam Hussein,” (“The Black Book of Saddam Hussein”) concludes that what passed for stability in Iraq cloaked the taking of a million lives and the creation of more than 4 million refugees.

For decades, and as long as the oil flowed, it has been convenient to turn a blind eye when Muslims massacre Muslims (e.g. the Anfal campaign, 180,000 Kurds murdered) or Arabs slaughter Arabs (e.g. Hama, more than 20,000 Syrians murdered), to ignore the spread of aggressive totalitarian ideologies throughout the Middle East and beyond -- into Africa and Asia and corners of Europe.

Even when terrorists struck we responded fecklessly. How that must have encouraged them.

Conflicts are sometimes inevitable – delay only ensures they will be more painful when they erupt. World War II would not have been so costly – indeed, might never have occurred -- had Hitler been challenged in 1933 or soon after.

In retrospect, was it a wise decision to leave Saddam in power in 1992 after he attempted to wipe an entire nation off the map? And if, instead of toppling Saddam in 2003, we had postponed the conflict, would the result have been increased stability – or something like what occurred as a consequence of avoiding a showdown with Osama bin Laden during the 1990s when we knew full well he was training thousands of terrorists to come after us?

For decades, the desire for stability has led us to support not Arabs and Muslims who advocate freedom and democracy -- but their oppressors. That led many in the Middle East to conclude – with some justification -- that they had nowhere to turn except to the Islamic Fascists.

So perhaps the resolution the Phil should be debating is not whether President Bush endangers stability, but whether fear of change could be the greatest danger of all.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by moki

The Myth of Stability
Oct 28, 2005
by Clifford D. May
In just a few days, I'm to debate at the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College, Dublin.
Trinity was founded in 1592. The Philosophical Society – better known as the “Phil” -- is of more recent vintage: It traces its lineage back to the 17th century.

Without questioning the virtues of Middle East rulers and whether the region was stable prior to the US invasion of Iraq I have to disagree with the writers analogies on the point that Churchill did not invade Germany because Germany posed a 'threat' but rather, joined up with the Chamberlain's cabinet at the start of the war and rose to prominence thereafter. Churchill opposed Hitler pre-war but the policies he advocated were not that far different than what Chamberlain had put forward. Their desire was to incorporate Germany as an equal partner into Europe - some would call that appeasment and offer a unified front to the Soviet Union. Anyway, I don't want to get off track here but the comparison of GWB to Churchill is off the mark IMO.

Was the ME a stable place prior to the invasion of Iraq? I guess that depends on whether you consider the ME more stable now? Hussein is estimated to have killed, tortured and imprisoned 30,000 Iraqis each year, to date somewhere around 26,000 Iraqis have died or been wounded from insurrgent attacks, the Lancet has estimated that 100,000 Iraqis have died from coalition attacks, a number which I will contend seems high but even the conservative estimates of 30,000 is staggering. In addition, an Iraqi now has a 58% higher chance of having violence acted upon them than pre-invasion. I would say for the individual Iraqi stability is a wash between post and pre invasion.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Ah.. the old reliable 17:22 rule 8 violation. Right on schedule

cheers

W-Y

[segovius]

yawn

[BRussell]

You know what's really cool? I normally surf the web on my own, reading what interests me. But now I can just come to MacNN and let moki copy-paste whole articles, without comment, for me to read! I'll never have to surf again!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You know what's really cool? I normally surf the web on my own, reading what interests me. But now I can just come to MacNN and let moki copy-paste whole articles, without comment, for me to read! I'll never have to surf again!

Hey, he's not as bad as I was/am. That was a brief clip! lolol

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You know what's really cool? I normally surf the web on my own, reading what interests me. But now I can just come to MacNN and let moki copy-paste whole articles, without comment, for me to read! I'll never have to surf again!

yes isn't it great!

Hey, let's review the rules of this forum for the sake of the thread starter mkay?


* First rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

* Second rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

* Third rule of the Political Lounge: Don't take it personally.

* Fourth rule of the Political Lounge: All other forum rules apply.

* Fifth rule of the Political Lounge: Think before you post.

* Sixth rule of the Political Lounge: No shirt, no shoes, no service. Wait..scratch that. Clothing is completely optional. Just don't tell us.

* Seventh rule of the Political Lounge: Threads go on as long as they have to. Lockination shouldn't occur too often if the other rules are followed.

* Eighth rule of the Political Lounge: No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting. Simply posting a news story and no context or direction is not conducive to fostering discussion. Avoid it.

* Ninth rule of the Political Lounge: You will have respect for other posters and their right to opposing viewpoints.

A refresher course is needed every once in a while it seems.

cheers

W-Y

[analogika]

I think that, if no evidence of opinion is found in moki's posts by the weekend, he should be impeached.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Without questioning the virtues of Middle East rulers and whether the region was stable prior to the US invasion of Iraq I have to disagree with the writers analogies on the point that Churchill did not invade Germany because Germany posed a 'threat' but rather, joined up with the Chamberlain's cabinet at the start of the war and rose to prominence thereafter. Churchill opposed Hitler pre-war but the policies he advocated were not that far different than what Chamberlain had put forward. Their desire was to incorporate Germany as an equal partner into Europe - some would call that appeasment and offer a unified front to the Soviet Union. Anyway, I don't want to get off track here but the comparison of GWB to Churchill is off the mark IMO.

Was the ME a stable place prior to the invasion of Iraq? I guess that depends on whether you consider the ME more stable now? Hussein is estimated to have killed, tortured and imprisoned 30,000 Iraqis each year, to date somewhere around 26,000 Iraqis have died or been wounded from insurrgent attacks, the Lancet has estimated that 100,000 Iraqis have died from coalition attacks, a number which I will contend seems high but even the conservative estimates of 30,000 is staggering. In addition, an Iraqi now has a 58% higher chance of having violence acted upon them than pre-invasion. I would say for the individual Iraqi stability is a wash between post and pre invasion.

FWIW, you just lost a few notches of my esteem.

The writer of course never mentioned Churchill invading Germany, but as you were trying to draw a finer comparison between Churchill and Bush you committed the typical fault of placing real people in real situations and then imagining them doing unreal things or no things at all.

If Churchill's well publicized advice in the lead up to war had been followed by His Majesty's Government one can not preclude other such pre-emptive strikes such as we see described in Wikipedia:

Churchill advocated the pre-emptive occupation of the neutral Norwegian iron-ore port of Narvik and the iron mines in Kiruna, Sweden, early in the War.

With the benefit of 65 years and 20/20 hindsight I ask you to concede that wide scale and comprehensive pre-emptive assaults on German targets could have benefitted the cause of liberty and be called a bargain if it could have saved millions of lives even if at the cost of many thousands. (The kinds of numbers we can estimate in the ME all told.)

In your second paragraph you try to establish a non-sensical condition whereby one is only able to judge current events by future events. i.e. "I won't know if I'm comfortable until later when I may not be comfortable."

Re: Iraq, the main thing history will look to judge in retrospect will be the results. The price in lives so far, even if it were ten times greater than it is now or were to continue for several years at a ten fold rate would still be acceptable if the results are there.

If no one ever cracked any eggs you'd be eating a pretty sorry breakfast.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by analogika

I think that, if no evidence of opinion is found in moki's posts by the weekend, he should be impeached.

Like president Bush should have been impeached if there weren't found any WMDs in Iraq, after the invasion I reckon.

.. I have never seen credibility shatter as fast as the day a certain someone backed out of that promise.

cheers

W-Y

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by analogika

I think that, if no evidence of opinion is found in moki's posts by the weekend, he should be impeached.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

yes isn't it great!

Hey, let's review the rules of this forum for the sake of the thread starter mkay?


* First rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

* Second rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

* Third rule of the Political Lounge: Don't take it personally.

* Fourth rule of the Political Lounge: All other forum rules apply.

* Fifth rule of the Political Lounge: Think before you post.

* Sixth rule of the Political Lounge: No shirt, no shoes, no service. Wait..scratch that. Clothing is completely optional. Just don't tell us.

* Seventh rule of the Political Lounge: Threads go on as long as they have to. Lockination shouldn't occur too often if the other rules are followed.

* Eighth rule of the Political Lounge: No posting and running. Give an opinion, your slant, anything in regards to what you're posting. Simply posting a news story and no context or direction is not conducive to fostering discussion. Avoid it.

* Ninth rule of the Political Lounge: You will have respect for other posters and their right to opposing viewpoints.

A refresher course is needed every once in a while it seems.

cheers

W-Y

I don't know if it is permitted (has such a case ever arisen?) but I am willing to stand for moki's point of view here as I have admired it over the course of several weeks and I feel QUITE confident that he is IS FAVOR OF GWB and his actions in invading Iraq being defended.

Until moki returns I will speak only for his Rule 8 compliance as any other statements he can make very well at his leisure (or not at all), himself.

And his post, speaks for itself.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I don't know if it is permitted (has such a case ever arisen?) but I am willing to stand for moki's point of view here as I have admired it over the course of several weeks and I feel QUITE confident that he is IS FAVOR OF GWB and his actions in invading Iraq being defended.

Until moki returns I will speak only for his Rule 8 compliance as any other statements he can make very well at his leisure (or not at all), himself.

And his post, speaks for itself.

No it doesn't.

I don't even know *your* view of anything in particular mojo2. Let alone the thread starter's.. He has been known to take 180° turns on his position.. from time to time.

There should be no reason to divine the position and opinion of a thread starter. Hence rule 8.

Nowhere in rule 8 does it say: "all of the above applies unless another poster thinks you aught to know what the thread starter meant all along".

cheers

W-Y

[Spliffdaddy]

lol.

reading the rules is childish.

i make my own rules.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moki

Those who have preceded me at this forum include Alexis de Tocqueville and Bertrand Russell. Then again, in recent years the smarmy fanatic George Galloway, the Holocaust denier David Irving and the porn star Ron Jeremy also have been guests.

Quite a lineage.

I am impressed.

Is that the topic?

[Spliffdaddy]

I could be a porn star. All I need is a camera.

and, perhaps, a willing young lady.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I could be a porn star. All I need is a camera.

and, perhaps, a willing young lady.

And all we need is thick glasses, a fast forward on the remote, and a couple of dozen beer?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Ah.. the old reliable 17:22 rule 8 violation. Right on schedule

cheers

W-Y

I'm curious; why do you feel compelled to act as a moderator, when you have the simple option of ignoring what doesn't affect you?

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

lol.

reading the rules is childish.

i make my own rules.

Rule 5 violation!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Rule 5 violation!

Rule 9 violation!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mojo2

FWIW, you just lost a few notches of my esteem.

I'm sure *that* broke his heart.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I'm curious; why do you feel compelled to act as a moderator, when you have the simple option of ignoring what doesn't affect you?

for correct usage of "affect".

It's so rare these days.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Rule 9 violation!

So then if calling shenanigans on Rule 5 is always a violation of Rule 9, the rules are like a Monty Python skit:
"They're all saying the word..."
"Stop saying it. AAAArghh! I've said it..."
"You've said it! Aaaaarghh!...we've said it...we're all saying it."

[Spliffdaddy]

rules are created by lazy people so they won't have to make decisions.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

rules are created by lazy people so they won't have to make decisions.

...except the rule about capitalising words at the start of sentences, which is there merely to annoy lazy people.

C'mon Spliffy, I expected better from you. Non-capitalisation is for commies.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by KarlG

I'm curious; why do you feel compelled to act as a moderator, when you have the simple option of ignoring what doesn't affect you?

In hopes of worthwhile discussions in the political lounge

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer

Rule 5 violation!

Haha, now that was funny

cheers

W-Y

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

In hopes of worthwhile discussions in the political lounge

cheers

W-Y

That's not an answer. You're not a moderator. If you don't like a discussion going on, ignore it, or start your own. It seems to me that it's more like a control issue.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by KarlG

That's not an answer. You're not a moderator. If you don't like a discussion going on, ignore it, or start your own. It seems to me that it's more like a control issue.

Consider me a concerned citizen.

cheers

W-Y

[Monique]

I was reading about David Irving, what an awful character.

I often wonder in debates, how do you debate something you do not believe in passionatly.

Not that I am saying you will not believe what you will say; but there will be another person in front of you; so how do you do it so you will win the debate.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

FWIW, you just lost a few notches of my esteem.

I'll live.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I'll live.

Hopefully in good health, happily, for a long time and prosperously.

Long enough to see the error of your positions.

[Nicko]

Is this 'moki' some kind of macnn post-bot that randomly googles and posts right-wing propaganda?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Is this 'moki' some kind of macnn post-bot that randomly googles and posts right-wing propaganda?

Of course not. That's *my* job.

Besides, the forum software isn't capable of supporting useful features such as rightwing post-bots....it can't even support discussion forums on most days.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Is this 'moki' some kind of macnn post-bot that randomly googles and posts right-wing propaganda?

Yep one might think so, but my sources tell me this is actually a human being. ¿Increíble, no? Nobody really knows why he keeps doing this. He certainly never discusses anything. Always post-and-run.

cheers

W-Y

[Spliffdaddy]

^ rule violation

(the hypocracy is ass deep)