T. Blair on CBC National

[bush_cheney2004]

No, we blame our leaders for being "pro-American".

Same difference...anything except "Canadian".

[eyeball]

I blame our leaders for being a bunch of spineless unprincipled liars. Other people seem to worship their's.

Fundamentally speaking this has a lot less to do with the often artificial arbitrary constructs we call nations than it does about people and the awful things they've done or omitted to do that has contributed to other people's suffering in the world. A nation is just a thing, it's how it's used that counts.

East west north or south is about as conventional as one needs to be in today's world, especially coming from the perspective of anyone who views themselves as simply being an Earthling. The rest is neither here nor there really.

[bush_cheney2004]

I blame our leaders for being a bunch of spineless unprincipled liars. Other people seem to worship their's.

Right...never "blame" yourself or the lifestyle choices of fellow citizens. Always project the blame to somebody or something else. Because everything would be peachy if only you were at the helm.

[ToadBrother]

Please. The freedom-loving democracies have done more than their fair share of harm and were certainly no stranger to domination, rape or slavery either, some even gave extermination a shot too. If you've seen one rogue nation you've seen them all.

I'm no fan of the Iraq War, mainly because it was so badly executed. But I'm curious about this phrase "more than the fair share". You wouldn't want to actually back that up, would you. What's your metric? Body count? Amount of territory seized? Number of people killed? Relative defensive vs. offensive strength?

As for your poor friendless people of the Soviet Union, cry them a river why don't you. We happily abandoned them to Stalin long before anyone had even heard of Hitler. If you've heard one chicken-shit lame-assed argument for appeasement you've heard them all. What's your's?

Happily abandoned them to Stalin? We hardly had any say on the matter. Even if we had wanted to invade Russia (and some countries did try to some back door interventions), well, we had only had to look at the devastation of Napoleon's army as a lesson in why that's a bad idea.

Eyeball, you're a historical illiterate. You know nothing about politics, nothing about history, nothing about anything. You're a mindless malcontent. This idea that somehow democracies have "more than their fair share" of blood on their hands is bizarre, and as bad a sign of the sort of weak-kneed self loathing that chopped us off at the knees.

No matter how you try to steer it, no democratic government has ever been as vile as Stalin's regime. There is no doubt some blood on all our hands, but to try to make us sound worse than Stalin, or any of his ilk is so ridiculous that I'd like to thinking you were just being hyperbolic, except you've posted here enough to justify my positing that you actually believe the verbal diarrhea you so often emit around here.

[ToadBrother]

Right...never "blame" yourself or the lifestyle choices of fellow citizens. Always project the blame to somebody or something else. Because everything would be peachy if only you were at the helm.

Please, our leaders are bad enough. Guys like eyeball make the worst kind of leaders, because they actually think they have all the answers. That's where the likes of Stalin and Pol Pot come from.

[eyeball]

I'm no fan of the Iraq War, mainly because it was so badly executed. But I'm curious about this phrase "more than the fair share". You wouldn't want to actually back that up, would you. What's your metric? Body count? Amount of territory seized? Number of people killed? Relative defensive vs. offensive strength?

We should have known better. Given the enlightenment our culture lay's claim to, we should have known better. Our diddling with weaker less powerful cultures is grotesque in the same way a coach, teacher or other moral authority's diddling with a child is all that more grotesque. Apologists for these and the West are just as analogous. So to is the harm done by the loss of credibility and faith.

Happily abandoned them to Stalin? We hardly had any say on the matter. Even if we had wanted to invade Russia (and some countries did try to some back door interventions), well, we had only had to look at the devastation of Napoleon's army as a lesson in why that's a bad idea.

It's the thought that would have counted.

Eyeball, you're a historical illiterate. You know nothing about politics, nothing about history, nothing about anything. You're a mindless malcontent. This idea that somehow democracies have "more than their fair share" of blood on their hands is bizarre, and as bad a sign of the sort of weak-kneed self loathing that chopped us off at the knees.

No matter how you try to steer it, no democratic government has ever been as vile as Stalin's regime. There is no doubt some blood on all our hands, but to try to make us sound worse than Stalin, or any of his ilk is so ridiculous that I'd like to thinking you were just being hyperbolic, except you've posted here enough to justify my positing that you actually believe the verbal diarrhea you so often emit around here.

Please go f^*k yourself you pontificating blow-hard.

You don't have a principled bone in your body or your assessment of history and as such you have no capacity to learn a single thing from all the shit you're so stuffed full of.

[ToadBrother]

We should have known better. Given the enlightenment our culture lay's claim to, we should have known better. Our diddling with weaker less powerful cultures is grotesque in the same way a coach, teacher or other moral authority's diddling with a child is all that more grotesque. Apologists for these and the West are just as analogous. So to is the harm done by the loss of credibility and faith.

Maybe for you. For me I see democracy given a fighting chance. It's not always been a success, and there have been mistakes and vile things done, but to state that we're worse than Stalin is not only wrong, its vulgar.

It's the thought that would have counted.

You are aware that there were attempts. But invading Russia was seen, rightly, as suicidal. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler, both of which pretty much wiped out their empires trying it.

Please go f^*k yourself you pontificating blow-hard.

You don't have a principled bone in your body or your assessment of history and as such you have no capacity to learn a single thing from all the shit you're so stuffed full of.

At least I know some history. You seem ignorant of most of it, and proudly so. Like I said, just a mindless malcontent.

[myata]

Maybe for you. For me I see democracy given a fighting chance. It's not always been a success, and there have been mistakes and vile things done, but to state that we're worse than Stalin is not only wrong, its vulgar.

It's not that we're better. It's that we're doing essentially the same things under different terminology. Democracy given "fighting chance" in Iraq? Or glorious socialism given liberated opportunity in Afghanistan, etc? We've grown so sensitive to our dogma just like our arch-rivals of late can't even call things their own proper name. Nor see the mirror for who we are or quickly becoming to be. Instigator of gratuitous, massive bloodshed sentenced to a lifetime of public preaching and writing memoirs. Is there a greater travesty, or joke of our incessant, ubiquitous and redundant to the point of nauseatia appeals to peace and justice?

[ToadBrother]

It's not that we're better. It's that we're doing essentially the same things under different terminology. Democracy given "fighting chance" in Iraq? Or glorious socialism given liberated opportunity in Afghanistan, etc? We've grown so sensitive to our dogma just like our arch-rivals of late can't even call things their own proper name. Nor see the mirror for who we are or quickly becoming to be. Instigator of gratuitous, massive bloodshed sentenced to a lifetime of public preaching and writing memoirs. Is there a greater travesty, or joke of our incessant, ubiquitous and redundant to the point of nauseatia appeals to peace and justice?

I often look at post Napoleonic Europe for an example of how war can make democracy spread. Napoleon was autocratic, and yet loved plebiscites. By and large he spread the ideals of the French Revolution, and almost everywhere he went, even though it was with the sword in hand, he left behind democracies, constitutions, all the trappings of modern states. Bloodshed can spread constitutional government.

Maybe Iraq will be a failure. But it was a despotic hellhole under Hussein. The error, to my mind, was not the invasion. Seeing pictures of Hussein hanging from a noose were deeply satisfying. The error was in not committing sufficient forces to the invasion and subsequent occupation. Bush shouldn't necessarily be shot out of a cannon for the invasion, he should be, however, for bungling the post-invasion occupation so badly.

Edited September 7, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Sir Bandelot]

Maybe Iraq will be a failure. But it was a despotic hellhole under Hussein.

Iraq was the envy of the middle east under Saddam. The people were well educated, had jobs and decent health care, and women had far more rights than they do in most other middle eastern countries, even more than they have in Iraq today. But go on and revise history, if you must

Oh and Napolean? Traitor. In the end he merely took the throne for himself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Iraq was the envy of the middle east under Saddam. The people were well educated, had jobs and decent health care, and women had far more rights than they do in most other middle eastern countries....

Unless you happened to be Kurdish, Shiite, Iranian, Kuwaiti, Israeli, etc. Then...not so much fun. Otherwise Saddam was just a swell guy!

[Sir Bandelot]

Unless you happened to be Kurdish, Shiite, Iranian, Kuwaiti, Israeli, etc. Then...not so much fun. Otherwise Saddam was just a swell guy!

Far more people were killed in a few years of the US invasion, than would have been had they not invaded. The US converted a harsh, strictly controlled but functional dictatorship into a lawless zone where people live and die like animals.

[Guest American Woman]

Far more people were killed in a few years of the US invasion, than would have been had they not invaded. The US converted a harsh, strictly controlled but functional dictatorship into a lawless zone where people live and die like animals.

Wow. A "harsh, strictly controlled but functional dictatorship." That's what you're supporting/defending. If only we should all be so lucky to live under such conditions.

I didn't support going to war, but I sure would never defend Saddam. And that's exactly what you are doing.

Unbelievable.

Edited September 8, 2010 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Wow. A "harsh, strictly controlled but functional dictatorship." That's what you're supporting/defending. If only we should all be so lucky to live under such conditions.

I didn't support going to war, but I sure would never defend Saddam. And that's exactly what you are doing.

Unbelievable.

Yes...profoundly confused. If one was opposed to the US support, Gulf War, sanctions, invasion and resulting deaths, how can he/she logically support Saddam's reign of terror? It makes no sense.

[ToadBrother]

Iraq was the envy of the middle east under Saddam. The people were well educated, had jobs and decent health care, and women had far more rights than they do in most other middle eastern countries, even more than they have in Iraq today. But go on and revise history, if you must

He bankrupted his country battling Iran, and then tried to pay the bills by invading Kuwait. Hussein was no success story. He was a Stalinist monster who gassed Iranian soldiers and later Kurds, had torture chambers and one of the most oppressive secret police organizations outside of Eastern Europe. You've lauded him like some sort of hero. Don't talk to me about history.

Oh and Napolean? Traitor. In the end he merely took the throne for himself.

Have you even read about the Directory, about Robespierre? About the chaos? Napoleon saved France from collapsing into utter madness. Of course, he was a warmonger, but it was an age of warmonger, but he was one of the few Enlightenment despots (the other important one being Frederick the Great, another military genius).

Napoleon was no more a traitor than the National Assembly was, and I'd argue that his legacy was far more positive than their's. The Code Napoleon is still one of the great accomplishments of modern jurisprudence.

[ToadBrother]

Wow. A "harsh, strictly controlled but functional dictatorship." That's what you're supporting/defending. If only we should all be so lucky to live under such conditions.

I didn't support going to war, but I sure would never defend Saddam. And that's exactly what you are doing.

Unbelievable.

If Sir B admires Hussein's regime, he must be a huge fan of the East Germany under Honecker, another "harsh, strictly controlled but functional dictatorship.`"

Edited September 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Sir Bandelot]

Yes...profoundly confused. If one was opposed to the US support, Gulf War, sanctions, invasion and resulting deaths, how can he/she logically support Saddam's reign of terror? It makes no sense.

Of course I don't expect either of you ideologues to understand. The reality of places like Iraq is ugly, and it involves making compromises. There is no chance for democracy when people hate each other for centuries. The only way to run such a dreadful place is by dictatorship. Can you fathom that? No, I doubt it.

[Sir Bandelot]

He bankrupted his country battling Iran, and then tried to pay the bills by invading Kuwait. Hussein was no success story. He was a Stalinist monster who gassed Iranian soldiers and later Kurds, had torture chambers and one of the most oppressive secret police organizations outside of Eastern Europe. You've lauded him like some sort of hero. Don't talk to me about history.

---

Have you even read about the Directory, about Robespierre? About the chaos? Napoleon saved France from collapsing into utter madness. Of course, he was a warmonger, but it was an age of warmonger, but he was one of the few Enlightenment despots (the other important one being Frederick the Great, another military genius).

Read your two paragraphs, in reverse

[Sir Bandelot]

Yoo people are amazing. Madelaine Albright. What more can I say...

Madelaine Albright

[ToadBrother]

Read your two paragraphs, in reverse

Napoleon was an entirely different kind of dictator than Hussein. You might notice I used the term "Enlightenment dictator". You can say a lot of things about the likes of Hussein, but "Enlightened" ain't one of them. And before you trounce on that, you might want to review a little history and explain for the class the difference between the likes of Frederick the Great and Napoleon on the one hand and the likes of Hussein and Stalin on the other.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course I don't expect either of you ideologues to understand. The reality of places like Iraq is ugly, and it involves making compromises. There is no chance for democracy when people hate each other for centuries. The only way to run such a dreadful place is by dictatorship. Can you fathom that? No, I doubt it.

Oh great...now you are denying that "democracy" it is even possible for those "people". How nice...smug and superior right on cue.

[ToadBrother]

Oh great...now you are denying that "democracy" it is even possible for those "people". How nice...smug and superior right on cue.

People once thought the same about the Germans and the Japanese. I'd say it's a might good thing there were some interventions, because both have proven to be quite vigorous and healthy democracies.

[bush_cheney2004]

People once thought the same about the Germans and the Japanese. I'd say it's a might good thing there were some interventions, because both have proven to be quite vigorous and healthy democracies.

Agreed...the Americans fought their bloodiest war right at home....as a "democracy".

[Sir Bandelot]

People once thought the same about the Germans and the Japanese. I'd say it's a might good thing there were some interventions, because both have proven to be quite vigorous and healthy democracies.

Totally different situation as both of those countries were a much more unified people. Lets look instead at a situation like Yugoslavia, for a clue of what happens.

[Sir Bandelot]

Napoleon was an entirely different kind of dictator than Hussein. You might notice I used the term "Enlightenment dictator". You can say a lot of things about the likes of Hussein, but "Enlightened" ain't one of them. And before you trounce on that, you might want to review a little history and explain for the class the difference between the likes of Frederick the Great and Napoleon on the one hand and the likes of Hussein and Stalin on the other.

Yeah sure, I'll now endeavour to defend the indefensible. Why not?

I'll tell you why, because I can't stand how you people are unable to see the difference between the bullshit you are being fed by your leaders, versus someone else.

No, I would never trust my life to someone like Saddam Hussein. Nor would I trust it to Barrack Obama.

"Enlightenment" is relative to what else is around. Compared to the despots in neighbouring countries, Saddam was enlightened. If the war was againt the unenlightened, they really shoulda went for Iran or Saudi, or Pakistan. The fact is, Saddam made Iraq one of the most emlightened of middle eastern countries. And that fact is suppressed by those who need to keep it suppressed. Your taskmasters

What, you think Stalin wasn't revered as a hero in the soviet union? For years. Even long after he was dead. He murdered millions. So did Johnson.

Napoleon, was a liar. When he crowned himself emporer, he betrayed everything he stood for. Eventually the Bourbons got back whatever they wanted.

Napoleon "was not significantly troubled when faced with the prospect of war and death for thousands, turned his search for undisputed rule into a series of conflicts throughout Europe and ignored treaties and conventions alike. His decision to reinstate slavery in oversea colonies is controversial to his reputation. He institutionalised plunder of conquered territories: museums contain art stolen by his forces from across Europe. Artefacts were brought to the Louvre for a grand central museum; his example would later serve as inspiration for more notorious imitators. He was compared to Adolf Hitler most famously by the historian Pieter Geyl in 1947."

"Goya's The Third of May 1808, painted in 1814, depicts the civilian executions that occurred following the Dos de Mayo Uprising. Five thousand defenders of Madrid were executed in two days. Critics argue Napoleon's true legacy must reflect the loss of status for France and needless deaths brought by his rule: historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, "After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost." McLynn notes that, he can be viewed as the man who set back European economic life for a generation by the dislocating impact of his wars."

---

Whose name shall we substitute for the above criticisms?

Saddam...

Adolph Hitler...

Josef Stalin...

LBJ...

GWB...

BHO...

Pick yer poison