Comments Posted By Leo
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 45 Comments
WHY THE POLITICIZATION OF GOVERNMENT IS WRONG
Rick Moran,
a post full of insights. But let ME go a step farther (and I wonder whether you would follow me here ...):Didn't the Bush team get to office - among other reasons - because they displayed contempt for government and bureaucracy and politics, something that appealed to many voters?
You cannot expect those who harbour contempt for government and bureaucracy to run government and bureaucracy competently.
Only those who understand that strong government is a good and necessary thing, and know that bureaucracy, if led well, can act with efficience and correctness - only those might provide you with a good government.
Europe has some good examples that this is so. The Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and some more ... Also Asia: Singapor, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan.
"Starve the beast" is out.
Comment Posted By leo On 11.07.2007 @ 20:15
1
"Who will stand for Lebanon?"Are the Shiites of Lebanon not part of Lebanon - and more than a third of it? They are Hezbollah and Amal, and are proSyrian. They are not represented adequately in the election system, thus discriminated politically. They want their democratically legitimate share.
So: Who will stand for the WHOLE Lebanon?
2
Assad is not Saddam lite. A dictator, but not worse than Mubarrak in Egypt, f.e..
And by the way, most Syrians are backing him now because they see what is happening in Iraq ...
Oust Assad - and you get the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus. Anybody of you wants to have that?3
How many percent of the US voters now demand a more or less complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?
As long as you assume the USA is a democracy you will have to consider: People will get their will!People are tired of this war, of the lies they are told about successes, of the wasting of money, the wasting of lives, the spoiling of the army, the gloating of the enemy who humiliates the proud US army ...
And people will get more tired by the month. So it is just a question of time until politicians are coerced to follow this will of the people - whether they like it or not.
Or don't they have to follow this will of the people? Do you think that against the will of the people the USA should go on trying to occupy Iraq?
Is there a power in the USA that is beyond the will of the voters?
As long as you appreciate democracy you ought to include in all war plans:
Comment Posted By leo On 11.07.2007 @ 19:58
Can you convince a majority of your people that it makes sense until the end - even when backlashes will make the war a bloody burden?
Has Syria really invaded Lebanon yet? I prefer to wait for a confirmation of this news.
Since the USA has given up their role as an "honest broker" and has started to support Israel's landgrab unconditionally and to try to corner Syria's Assad, things get messed up there more and more.
- Assad's regime is consolidated by the US desaster in Iraq and due to Hezbollah's success in the recent short Lebanon war.
- Iran is greatly empowered courtesy of USA who crushed their main enemy (the Sunni Baathists) and brought to power Iran's Shiite allies, Dawa & SIIC.
- In Palestine Hamas grows to become the salient voice of the Palestinians.Things develop ... and seem to spiral out of control gradually.
I suppose next year (maybe earlier) USA will air-raid Iran, and Israel will use this "opportunity" to try to finish Hezbollah.
Both wars will have repercussions, i.e. effects and side-effects, that will be out of control.
(This US government and its supporters never were good in anticipating the ugly consequences of their well-intended activities.)Those two powers with the big stick in the MiddleEast - the high tech fire power - should not forget that
- they only can destroy with this fire power, but they cannot build,
- they will create ever more determined enemies who learn to fight an asymmetric war and sacrifice their lives in it,
- they undermine global economy (by endangering the oil flow from the MidEast).US and Israeli politics in the MidEast are counter-productive in these three respects.
Time is now on the enemies' side. We need the MidEast oil, and cannot afford an explosion of the whole region as long as their is no replacement for this ressource. So why on earth do we play with fire?
The current evolution toward a Hezbollah dominance and a restauration of Syrian influence in Lebanon is just a small piece in the mosaic that builds right now.
Europeans like me watch with desparation how USA and Israel build up a fire in which they might get burnt - and in which we might get burnt with them.
(We Germans have our own experience with hubris and political irresponsibility: see 1914-18, and see 1933-45! We thought we were sooo strong ... and so gooood, of course, so much better than the others ...)
Comment Posted By leo On 10.07.2007 @ 14:55
RAGE AGAINST THE NIGHT - AND GLOBAL WARMING
Global warming is not a right/left but an issue of science. At first.
But our ANSWERS to this issue are political: how to interpret the scientifical findings, and what to do in response - individually, societally, and governmentally?
Now, if there were only a 25% plausibility that we are up to ruin our ecosphere by polluting and abusing it - these 25% should be enough to make it wise for us to change our life-style radically. (I suppose the plausibility of the Gore warnings can claim a higher percentage than that. I give it 50%.)
Anyway, nothing can grow eternally, so from this intuition, too, we ought to think of ways how we could do without growth, how we could learn to live with some shrinking.
Some "Luddism" may become a sound counter-principle to our contemporary progress & growth addiction, to our one-sidedly Capitalist structures.
I mean balance, not just "Luddism" as a prevailing strategy. And "Luddism" here is only a provocative and misleading metaphor for what we ought to do to shrink our consumerism.
Comment Posted By leo On 10.07.2007 @ 07:03
What about an "eco tax" on gasoline, let me suggest half a Dollar per gallon, and using this tax money for establishing better public transportation everywhere in the USA: trains, subways, tramways, bus connections, bike ways ...
It would save you a lot of oil, make the USA more independent in the MidEast theater, and in a side-effect it would be ecological as well.
I know, the whole thing would amount to a revolution: a real change in the US way of life.
But look at Europe, at Munich f.e., my home. My American students all enjoy our excellent public transportation system, and also the bike ways, in general the easiness with which you can move without a car.
And the eco tax would not really cost you so much. The reduction in oil demand would lower the price of gas, too ...
Is such policy "Luddism"?
Comment Posted By leo On 9.07.2007 @ 15:52
Dear Rick Moran,
I've read your 2006-post about Guantanamo now, and it is a very good one. I apologize for my trying to "pigeonhole" you concerning torture.
My general problem with your post about liberal hysteria and with the debate is this: It all sounds very much like a civil war. The way you express yourself, Rick Moran, is quite hot ... as if you wage a civil war with people whom you call liberals.
Is it really a good idea for Americans, liberal or conservative, to wage a verbal civil war with each other?
Both sides NEED each other, and so need understanding and compromise for each other to be able to govern the country in a sound way.
A constructive culture of debate in a democracy requires some friendliness and visible respect for the other side.
You are no liberal, Rick Moran, and I do not intend you to convince of my liberal views, but I suppose you (and your nation) cannot remain strong without a strong liberal movement - as it will not prevail without a strong conservative movement, too. Both sides need each other, to balance each other.
---
As for "enemy" in quotation marks in my post before your answer: I am a Christian and try to follow Jesus: Love your enemy.
I hold (different to many American Christians) that this means and can only mean: Respect your enemy they way this enemy is.
I've taught myself to do that when I studied Hitler's biography ... He is an enemy, for sure, and a capital one. But a human being nevertheless, and I want to understand him: his convictions, his motives, his mindset. I want to feel the humanity in this man who acted in the most inhumane way possible.
(I would have assassinated him, had I lived in his time and had I found an opportunity to do so then. But I would not have done that from hatred. There are better reasons to fight an enemy ...)
So I used the "" to distance myself a little bit from the hatred-version of what an enemy is.
Comment Posted By leo On 9.07.2007 @ 15:28
to sweetie, who wrote: “sound†in a spot where “principled†was called for ...
Principled, yes, f.e. in the question of torture. The USA has re-introduced torture as a part of interrogation. And Republican candidates for President mostly and openly advocate the use of torture.
Thus they have abandoned the principles Western nations stand for, the principles which could unite us in our fight against the fanatics, who ever they are, Islamists, Chinese, or else.
I am a liberal, and among my principles are:
No torture!
Checks and balances!
No war of aggression!
Inclusion of minorities!
Make the center = the middle classes strong! (= mistrust the very rich, the people with too much money power, and help the poorer third to catch up with the middle third of the people)And I am a Christian who follows Jesus' word: Love your enemy!
(what means: respect him the way he is)Here, sweetie, you have some of the principles of a liberal guy (in Germany we call us Social Democrats and Greens), and I think all these principles allow a bridge to Conservatives, allow a friendly dialogue between us. At least in Germany.
Lieberman seems to have abandoned principled liberalism in some principles ...
Comment Posted By leo On 9.07.2007 @ 05:23
To what degree are you willing or capable to harbour doubt when your own people are in power?
The Fathers of the Constitution established checks and balances - they had considerable mistrust in power and in government, and for good reason.
What we observe today when we look to the USA from Europe -- is bewildering. Those people from whom we (most of all: we Germans) have learnt such a lot about Democracy - those people may have lost the sense of Democratic checks and balances and shift so much power to the government that this government can re-establish torture, can eavesdrop without court surveillance, throws out habeas corpus for "enemies", etc.?
Mr. Moran, I've have just discovered your blog yesterday, and found it articulate and good for me to learn more about the pro-Bush mindset in the USA.
I read a blog like yours with personal respect: I realize there is a person with knowledge and good reflection who tried to make sense of the world.
I have not read the entries in which you utter doubts concerning the rule of law and human rights. I will try to find them - I am a doubter, and it's always the mutual capability of doubt that connects me most to people, whatever principles they may follow.
Comment Posted By leo On 9.07.2007 @ 05:05
Sounds like a somewhat hysterical anti-liberal rant answering to an admittedly also sometimes hysterical anti-Bush rant.
Mr. Moran, there ARE some real concerns
about the rule of law (secrecy policy, eavesdropping without juridical warrant, VicePres not part of the executive, etc.)
and about human rights (habeas corpus, torture, rendition program, etc.)
that make the world wonder.
Is there no problem for you? Absolutely no problem?
Why not talk in a calm voice with sound liberals who are open to a sober debate?
Comment Posted By leo On 8.07.2007 @ 19:15
a wrong - misleading - letter: The paragraph must end with an n.
"When some US spokesmen recently pointed to Iranian delivery to Sunni IEDs this is – I infer – mere US propaganda: preparation of the assault on IraN."
Comment Posted By leo On 9.07.2007 @ 19:26
