Is our decision to help enforce the "No Fly Zone" a sign of our Fascist ways or something else. I vote for something much better and more compassionate... Maybe not Smart, but surely compassionate and maybe a bit idealistic. Thoughts? Obama Warns Gadhafi
From Ellen's Places: 14 Points of Fascism
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
What about Afganistan? Or Iraq? Or Korea?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Using the military for "just action" is reasonable (not fascist.) But why does our military need to equal the strength of the rest of the world combined and how do we know when an action is just?
(I'm having trouble posting a different, long winded comment-on the 14 pts. Hopefully I haven't caused technical problems for you. Whether it makes it onto your blog or not, it is was clarifying for me writng it)
Some would say that this is the "Responsibility" we bear as the last "Super Power". I say it has a lot to do with some incredible words that were once written many years ago...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Wiki Declaration
Remember that we needed some Foreign assistance in becoming an independent Representative Democracy. Wiki French Involvement
As for "Just", I guess that is where the United Nations Security Council comes in. If you can get through there without a veto. You are probably pretty close to the mark. Though like all human actions, sometimes people will screw up...
An interesting side note: Which map is correct?
It is fascinating that we try to prevent countries from reclaiming territory that they possessed in the past. With the assumption that today's maps should stay somewhat fixed. No real point other than something to think about.
I was on a flight with a Chinese woman, for the life of her she could not understand why anyone would not want China to take over Taiwan. She truly believed it is meant to be. I tried to explain that if the Taiwan people voted of their own free will to join China. Then the democracies of the world would be understanding, though maybe a bit confused. I don't think she could understand the concept...
not sure which map you are referring to but arbitrary or disputed borders around the world do seem to cause a lot trouble. Earlier when I went on line I surfed around on an informal survey of thoughts re Libya and sided most often with the doubters, that it is not yet time fot military intervention or that Obama has not yet made a strong enough case for it.
one of the books I have packed for possible reading this next week is Adams-Jefferson letters, but more than likely I'll opt for something less intellectual.
I like to avoid semantic discussions because they are a diversion from substantive issues. To a definition question, my answer is always a word means whatever the Merriam Webster dictionary says it means, and I move on. When you complicate the word, it loses focus, and meaning.
In our political discourse, people use words like fascist, socialist, communist not in ways that expand our understanding of those historical ideas, or of current political ideas, but as weapons to be used to beat down the opposition. Use of those words reduces what should be a serious discussion of important ideas, to the level of school yard bullying which rewards the loudest, and meanest, but hardly the best.
--Hiram
Nokomis,
The current arbitrary maps, from my understanding, were mostly created by the allies after WWII. Or by some other event in the 20th century. Some of our normal international hotspots: Taiwan, Kuwait, Israel, Palestine, Nepal, Korea, etc. Is the 21st century map better or more just than the 18th century or the ....
Another random thought, I wonder what we would have thought if a foreign nation had helped the South to secede. Seems an appropriate question with regard to Libya.
Hiram,
Often Labels have power in part because we do not discuss or define them. I am hoping that by shining the light on people's interpretations, we may weaken them. If nothing else, I can promote some self contemplation regarding what it means to them.
An interesting twist... Even Norway is involved. Being mostly Norwegian myself... GO VIKINGS !!!
MSNBC Deployment
I saw Jonathan Altar on cable this morning commenting briefly how Obama seem more sincere in having the USA be part of a multilateral military response to situations like Libya. With G.W. it seemed more like lip service and exaggeration, with his coalition of the willing (which included the 2 troops from Iceland.)
Post a Comment