lest we forget...


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 9:37am: All the wars we have fought, and the people who have died to protect our freedom, are a figment of my imagination, a caricature of our past. Correct. Or I should clarify - many people may have died thinking they were protecting our freedom, but they were as deluded as you are. The reality is, every man and woman who has died fighting in Australia's wars died in the name of protecting either British or American economic hegemony. The sad truth is - engaging ourselves in unnecessary wars of aggression threatens our freedoms, not protects them.

It's OK, because Gandalf is one of the progressive ones.

ANZAC day ?

ISLAM's peace and respect, Aussie bro!!!!!




text at the YT page....

Quote:

An Adelaide Islamic preacher is under police investigation after he was filmed calling for all Buddhists and Hindus to be killed. Detectives are examining the sermon given by Sheikh Sharif Hussein, who has previously been visited by the intelligence services, in which he described Australian soldiers as "Crusader pigs".

Adelaide mosque preacher Sheikh Sharif Hussein directs fury at.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0FcYCqo41Y

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 11:55am:

lest we forget... polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 11:38am: freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2014 at 9:37am: All the wars we have fought, and the people who have died to protect our freedom, are a figment of my imagination, a caricature of our past. Correct. Or I should clarify - many people may have died thinking they were protecting our freedom, but they were as deluded as you are. The reality is, every man and woman who has died fighting in Australia's wars died in the name of protecting either British or American economic hegemony. The sad truth is - engaging ourselves in unnecessary wars of aggression threatens our freedoms, not protects them. It's OK, because Gandalf is one of the progressive ones.

That’s strange. I’m sure I recall a certain poster in 2007 saying that our invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, put us at a greater risk of terrorism.

Not to mention the risk of death if you’re a soldier.

Perhaps I should start up a thread with this poster’s quotes.

Happy Anzac Day, FD. Are you having a party to celebrate?

I was never happy about invading Iraq. I'm still not, though if democracy takes hold there too it will be a victory.

But you'll struggle to find any post by me claiming we should not have gone into Afghanistan or that it increased the risk of terrorism. If you do, post it up and I'll take it back for you.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 2:34pm:

I was never happy about invading Iraq. I'm still not, though if democracy takes hold there too it will be a victory.

I do not believe that what we know as 'democracy' can 'take hold' in Iraq.

Democracy [and the societal peace stability] that it offers a people, can only succeed among people who agree with the principles of truth and justice and self sacrifice.




Quote:

But you'll struggle to find any post by me claiming we should not have gone into Afghanistan or that it increased the risk of terrorism. If you do, post it up and I'll take it back for you. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Western hemisphere nations should not involve themselves in the political intrigues that are always present in ISLAMIC dominated cultures.

Punish them [or any other nation], if they [seek to] harm us [and/or seek to destroy our peace].

But otherwise, let moslem societies 'stew in their own juices'.

Nothing to do with us.

Moslems have their pride, and their honour, to sustain themselves with.





Moslem 'luminaries' and cultural spokesmen, regularly insist that their moslem societies/culture is inherently superior to the political systems in the West, so let them prove it so.

Arms length from us.

Whats wrong FD - do you have to swallow the "they fought for our freeeeeeedum" schtick before you're allowed to commemorate Anzac day?

I haven't seen that rule before.

Anzac day was originally for the Gallipoli landings. Is there actually anyone who seriously believes our invasion of Turkey on the other side of the world on behalf of the British Empire was a noble freedom-loving cause?

For the record I have the greatest respect for our soldiers who risk life and limb fighting with and for their mates - which as any soldier will tell you is what the fight is about for them - fighting for their mates. I also appreciate them being there to protect us if ever the need arises.

Our vets deserve our commemoration for being ordered off to risk their lives and the severe mental trauma that all of them suffer as a result. For the individuals involved, it doesn't matter to me that they weren't fighting for our freedom - their deeds were no less brave and no less worthy of recognition.

This was a cheap shot FD - a cynical tugging at this country's emotional heart strings in order to drive a deliberate wedge in our community and fan the flames of hatred. You don't have a damn clue about what Anzac day means to me personally, and what my family has been through and contributed in our wars. To you I'm just a faceless freedom-hating muslim who is a complete alien to our culture and Anzac spirit. My thoughts about why our political elite committed our troops to wars over the years has absolutely nothing to do with how I think the veterans themselves should be treated and remembered - and trying to connect the two in this offensive way is about the lowest you have ever been FD.

Using Anzac day to attempt to drive a wedge in our society - can't get much lower than that.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 2:34pm:

I was never happy about invading Iraq. I'm still not, though if democracy takes hold there too it will be a victory. But you'll struggle to find any post by me claiming we should not have gone into Afghanistan or that it increased the risk of terrorism. If you do, post it up and I'll take it back for you.

True, FD. You used the more generic "occupation" of Muslim countries. And you described incidents of Islamic  terrorism as a defensive response.

Funny how some things change, though isn’t it?

Quote:

For the individuals involved, it doesn't matter to me that they weren't fighting for our freedom

Of course not, because it means nothing to you. You can't even see how the world would be different if the Nazis and Japanese had won.


Quote:

This was a cheap shot FD - a cynical tugging at this country's emotional heart strings in order to drive a deliberate wedge in our community and fan the flames of hatred.

It was a stupid claim by you, and particularly ironic that you came out with this crap on ANZAC day. If people hate Islam, it is not because of 'cheap shots', but because of the campaign against freedom and democracy by Muslims. It is because of the things that Muslims like you say, the weasel words you offer in pretend support of the rights and freedoms that men have died for.


Quote:

You don't have a damn clue about what Anzac day means to me personally

I know that to you it is nothing about freedom and democracy, because you don't care particularly that the Nazis lost.


Quote:

and what my family has been through and contributed in our wars

You probably bring great shame to them.


Quote:

To you I'm just a faceless freedom-hating muslim

You don't hate it. You are a progressive Muslim. You are merely indifferent to it, and offer your limp-wristed support to it, provided it costs you nothing, in an effort to fit in and appear normal. In fact you have made a mantra of normalcy, and you trot it out regularly.


Quote:

who is a complete alien to our culture and Anzac spirit

Tell me about your ANZAC spirit Gandalf.


Quote:

My thoughts about why our political elite committed our troops to wars over the years has absolutely nothing to do with how I think the veterans themselves should be treated and remembered

As deluded? You may take our lives, but you'll never take our economic hegemony!


Quote:

and trying to connect the two in this offensive way is about the lowest you have ever been FD

Yet this is exactly how you celebrated ANZAC day Gandalf - by describing our troops as deluded and saying it would make no difference to you if the Nazis and Japanese had won.

So in answer to my question FD which you couldn't quite bring yourself to answer directly, clearly you do need to swallow the "they fought for our freeeeeeedum" schtick before you are allowed to commemorate Anzac day. Gotcha.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 8:24am:

It was a stupid claim by you, and particularly ironic that you came out with this crap on ANZAC day.

Ooh yes how outrageous of me to answer your offensive slurs because it just happens to fall on Anzac day. You are feigning outrage here FD in a cynical bid to appeal to our ever-increasing jingoistic attitude towards Anzac day. You know deep down that there is nothing inherently 'islamic' about my views here, and I think in your most sober moments you probably agree that your 'fight them on the beaches' meme is a load of hogwash. You've never actually presented anything to counter my position - and in fact every time I refute your arguments - such as proving to you that the US has been intent on quashing democracy at every step during the cold war, or highlighting the stifling economic situation that the aggressors found themselves in before WWII - you concede and offer nothing to counteract. Literally all you can argue with is points that are demonstrably untrue (eg SE Asia was thriving with demcoracy and freedom before the Japanese stepped in) and strawman after strawman (gandalf loves that the NAZIs won the war)

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2014 at 8:24am: It was a stupid claim by you, and particularly ironic that you came out with this crap on ANZAC day. Ooh yes how outrageous of me to answer your offensive slurs because it just happens to fall on Anzac day. You are feigning outrage here FD in a cynical bid to appeal to our ever-increasing jingoistic attitude towards Anzac day.

And it gets worse every year.

Next year will be unbearable (100 year anniversary).

Quote:

So in answer to my question FD which you couldn't quite bring yourself to answer directly, clearly you do need to swallow the "they fought for our freeeeeeedum" schtick before you are allowed to commemorate Anzac day. Gotcha.

You can commemorate it by burning the Australian flag, lamenting Hitler's demise, and telling everyone how noble Muhammed was in slaughtering 800 Jewish POWs in one day. I'm all about freedom, you see. You got me there.


Quote:

Ooh yes how outrageous of me to answer your offensive slurs because it just happens to fall on Anzac day.

It is ironic, don't you think?


Quote:

You are feigning outrage here FD

You are imagining outrage. To me it is just another Muslim revealing what they really think. I used the term ironic, not outrageous. This is an entirely appropriate term for your post, don't you think? Please try not to pretend I am shaking my fist with rage while posting this.


Quote:

in a cynical bid to appeal to our ever-increasing jingoistic attitude towards Anzac day

Here we go with the cynical use of wishy washy western liberal morals to attack Islam crap. If you are going to sprout this BS, you should not be so afraid to follow through.


Quote:

You know deep down that there is nothing inherently 'islamic' about my views here

Yes there is. To you, freedom and democracy are nothing more than "wish washy western liberal morals" that people cynically use to attack Islam. You have to undermine these values at every opportunity, because they make Islam look so bad.


Quote:

and I think in your most sober moments you probably agree that your 'fight them on the beaches' meme is a load of hogwash

Can you please look up meme in the dictionary. Or just use a more appropriate term, like narrative. I cringe every time I see you post this, and I fear it is my fault for introducing you to the term.


Quote:

You've never actually presented anything to counter my position

I have asked you to explain how we were all really fighting for economic hegemony, yet neither the troops nor the leaders knew this.


Quote:

such as proving to you that the US has been intent on quashing democracy at every step during the cold war

You have not proven this.


Quote:

Literally all you can argue with is points that are demonstrably untrue (eg SE Asia was thriving with demcoracy and freedom before the Japanese stepped in)

Quote me.


Quote:

and strawman after strawman

Hypocrite.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:47am:

You are imagining outrage. To me it is just another Muslim revealing what they really think. I used the term ironic, not outrageous. This is an entirely appropriate term for your post, don't you think? Please try not to pretend I am shaking my fist with rage while posting this.

The title of this thread was obviously intended to push some particular buttons - mostly mine I suspect. But keep pretending it wasn't, you're the one looking ridiculous with these deliberately divisive and personal tactics.


freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:47am:

Here we go with the cynical use of wishy washy western liberal morals to attack Islam crap.

No, there is nothing 'western liberal' about dog whistling to a dark and increasingly militant jingoism - wishy washy or otherwise.


freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:47am:

To you, freedom and democracy are nothing more than "wish washy western liberal morals" that people cynically use to attack Islam. You have to undermine these values at every opportunity, because they make Islam look so bad.

You are the only one undermining our values FD - by this obscene wedge campaign to demonize anyone who dares suggest that our wars weren't about defending freedom and democracy as these most vulgar freedom-hating muslims. And to accuse anyone of holding such a view of commemorating Anzac day by burning flags and lamenting Hitler's demise. Its not just offensive - its supremely hypocrtical coming from someone who accuses these people of undermining  "Australian values".


freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:47am:

Can you please look up meme in the dictionary.

OK:

a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition and replication in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes.

Fits the bill perfectly. Its a particularly virulent cultural item that is repeated and replicated ad-nauseum.


freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:47am:

You have not proven this.

America spent the entire cold war quashing democracy - especially in South America. When I pointed this out you replied by saying you concede it was "sporadic" - which is about the closest thing we'll ever get to an admission that you were wrong. The reality that you cannot refute is that Nicuragua and Iran were the norm not the exception.


freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:47am:

Quote: Literally all you can argue with is points that are demonstrably untrue (eg SE Asia was thriving with demcoracy and freedom before the Japanese stepped in) Quote me.

When I pointed out that SE Asia was occupied by un-free and undemocratic European occupations, you retorted with this:


Quote:

Of course. You cannot tell the difference between the freedom and democracy of the western world with the oppressive dictatorships that Japan and Germany attempted to replace it with.

Perhaps you meant to say "you cannot tell the difference between oppressive occupation by the western world and oppressive occupation by the Japanese" - to which I would plead guilty as charged.

Quote:

The title of this thread was obviously intended to push some particular buttons

Either that, or to highlight the irony of a progressive Muslim calling our troops deluded stooges on ANZAC day.


Quote:

mostly mine I suspect

Oh? I didn't realise ANZAC day was particularly special for Muslims. The turks maybe. What buttons am I pushing?


Quote:

But keep pretending it wasn't, you're the one looking ridiculous with these deliberately divisive and personal tactics.

Yes I can see how this looks bad for me. You left out bigoted, BTW.


Quote:

No, there is nothing 'western liberal' about dog whistling to a dark and increasingly militant jingoism - wishy washy or otherwise.

If you truly believed this, wouldn't you think twice about calling our troops deluded stooges on ANZAC day?


Quote:

You are the only one undermining our values FD - by this obscene wedge campaign to demonize anyone who dares suggest that our wars weren't about defending freedom and democracy as these most vulgar freedom-hating muslims.

They are your own words, Gandalf. Not mine. I was merely quoting you. On ANZAC day.


Quote:

And to accuse anyone of holding such a view of commemorating Anzac day by burning flags and lamenting Hitler's demise. Its not just offensive - its supremely hypocrtical coming from someone who accuses these people of undermining  "Australian values".

I didn't accuse you of it, I said you are free to do so, after you insisted you had 'gotten me' on the issue of whether you are permitted to hold your backwards opinions while celebrating ANZAC day.


Quote:

America spent the entire cold war quashing democracy - especially in South America. When I pointed this out you replied by saying you concede it was "sporadic" - which is about the closest thing we'll ever get to an admission that you were wrong.

How is this proof that the intention was to quash democracy?


Quote:

When I pointed out that SE Asia was occupied by un-free and undemocratic European occupations, you retorted with this: the freedom and democracy of the western world

I see. By 'the western world' I obviously meant SE Asia. You still have not clarified whether English is your second language.

On ANZAC Day? Oh, my. How terrible.

Don’t put that in the Wiki, FD. A poor veteran or his family might come across it.

Mind you, you do keep repeating it so.

So how many war heroes did you insult on ANZAC day Karnal?

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

If you truly believed this, wouldn't you think twice about calling our troops deluded stooges on ANZAC day?

What I say is neither disrespectful or crossing any sacrosanct boundary - ANZAC day or not. You are just invoking an hysterical and irrational method of argument for the dual purpose of avoiding the merits of my actual argument and demonizing muslims.


freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 1:57pm:

see. By 'the western world' I obviously meant SE Asia. You still have not clarified whether English is your second language.

Yes, how silly of me to think that you might actually post something that was relevant to the passage you were replying too.

Quote:

What I say is neither disrespectful or crossing any sacrosanct boundary

There are no sacrosanct boundaries. You are a free man Gandalf. But I dare you to tell a WWII vet to his face that he was deluded for thinking he was defending our freedom. Preferably with the cameras rolling  ;)


Quote:

You are just invoking an hysterical and irrational method of argument

What is this method? Highlighting your arrogance and self delusion?


Quote:

for the dual purpose of avoiding the merits of my actual argument and demonizing muslims.

Ah yes, I mustn't criticise the idiotic things Gandalf says. That's demonising muslims. That's bigoted.


Quote:

Yes, how silly of me to think that you might actually post something that was relevant to the passage you were replying too.

You brought it up. I never said SE Asia was some beacon of freedom and democracy. This is another one of those things that I did not actually say, but you still know I said. This never turns out well for you Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 9:18pm:

What is this method? Highlighting your arrogance and self delusion?

Taking a perfectly reasonable opinion about our wars not being about fighting for freedom and democracy - and creating a thread out of it called "local Muslim celebrates ANZAC day".

By the way, who 'celebrates' ANZAC day anyway?

Would you believe I invented that technique all by myself? It's already a meme.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:

So how many war heroes did you insult on ANZAC day Karnal?

Oh, just myself, FD. You?

I blame Islam.

Me? No idea. I'm still not sure whether Gandalf is a war hero. He won't tell me about his ANZAC spirit. I know they don't don't like to admit how much fun it was.

You must be sensitive to our friends.

---

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

Me? No idea. I'm still not sure whether Gandalf is a war hero. He won't tell me about his ANZAC spirit. I know they don't don't like to admit how much fun it was.

I'm sure there are a lot of vets who would be digusted and insulted by the sort of wedge dog-whistling games you are playing. If they really believe they were fighting for our freedom, I'm sure they weren't thinking of the freedom to demonize an entire group and attempt to drive a wedge through our society.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 26^th, 2014 at 5:10pm:

How exactly did Winston Churchill sending thousands of ANZACs (and Turks) to their deaths on a beach in Turkey defend my right to sleep safely at night? And for that matter, how exactly did John Winston Howard condemning hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to their deaths defend my right to sleep safely at night? Corporate interests using young men as cannon fodder to further their business interests does not defend my right to sleep safely at night.  This is the lesson we need to learn from ANZAC.

Lots of interesting views in this thread. Interestingly, those who oppose such views as rabbitoh's here are able to argue their point without resorting to demonizing the poster as an arrogant freedom-hating muslim.

Food for thought eh...

I know. FD's even tarred me with the war hero-insulter brush.

I'm not sure how, but it must have something to do with me sullying the purity of ANZAC Day with scandalous posts like this:


Melanias purse wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Happy Anzac Day, FD. Are you having a party to celebrate?

I wonder if I'll get sent a white feather in the post. FD really does love Freedom so.

Quote:

I'm sure there are a lot of vets who would be digusted and insulted by the sort of wedge dog-whistling games you are playing.

Go find one then. Explain to them they they were deluded if they thought they were fighting for our freedom and ask them to get all upset about me quoting you. You can even share your ANZAC spirit with them. I bet they'd love that.


Quote:

If they really believe they were fighting for our freedom, I'm sure they weren't thinking of the freedom to demonize an entire group and attempt to drive a wedge through our society.

Freedom of speech means the right to say something you might not like.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2014 at 10:01pm:

You can even share your ANZAC spirit with them. I bet they'd love that.

Do you think 'sharing the ANZAC spirit' consists of old diggers talking about all the freedom they fought for?

I give them more credit than that. Mostly they would think about the mates they fought with and for and all the ones they lost.

A great many, I daresay, would lament the wastefulness of war and the importance of avoiding it.

Very few if any of them would engage in the sort of BS Churchillian jingoistic chest beating that you drone on with. They would despise such nonsense. They would probably implore the likes of you to learn about what war is really about.

Quote:

Do you think 'sharing the ANZAC spirit' consists of old diggers talking about all the freedom they fought for?

You tell me Gandalf.


Quote:

To you I'm just a faceless freedom-hating muslim who is a complete alien to our culture and Anzac spirit.

What does 'our' ANZAC spirit mean to you? Did you google ANZAC day before posting here so you knew what you were talking about?


Quote:

Very few if any of them would engage in the sort of BS Churchillian jingoistic chest beating that you drone on with.

That's because no-one would be stupid enough to suggest they are deluded for thinking they were defending our freedoms. There only seems to be a need to discuss issues like freedom when Muslims are around.


Quote:

They would despise such nonsense. They would probably implore the likes of you to learn about what war is really about.

Economic hegemony?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

Quote: They would despise such nonsense. They would probably implore the likes of you to learn about what war is really about. Economic hegemony?

Ah.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

That's because no-one would be stupid enough to suggest they are deluded for thinking they were defending our freedoms. There only seems to be a need to discuss issues like freedom when Muslims are around.

Australian soldiers did not fight for our freedoms - and if any veteran actually believes that (and I'm guessing not many do), then they are deluded. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

Here's another muslim spewing his anti-freedom, anti-anzac vitriol... oh wait, its an Aussie veterans group:


Quote:

"You do not honor the dead through mindless flag waving, rewriting history or promoting new wars," said Hamish Chitts, East Timor veteran and spokesperson for Stand Fast -- a group of veterans and former military personnel who oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "ANZAC Day has become a nationalist circus with little real reflection on why governments sent soldiers, sailors and airmen to their deaths. All we get is glib cliches and a perverse 'cult of sacrifice' where we're told that it doesn't matter why you are sent to war, whether your government lied to you or not, the greatest thing an ordinary Australian can do is die in a war. "A classic example can be seen on the streets of Brisbane. The RSL have put up banners and ads on buses saying, "420,127 Queenslanders have courageously fought for our freedom since 1915." This is absolutely ridiculous and an outright lie! How did the insane slaughter of World War 1 gain freedom? The overwhelming majority of those poor souls that ended up fighting in those trenches that did come back knew it was a war only benefiting the rich and something that should never happen again. "Which war gained women the right to vote? Which war gained the 8 hour work day? Which war gave people the right to hold public demonstrations? There isn't one, our freedom has always been fought and won by the people, civilians, standing up to their own government! 'The myth that if Australian troops fight they are automatically fighting for our freedom needs to be busted because it lets warmongering politicians off the hook when they slaughter our youth!

http://indymedia.org.au/2012/04/25/veterans-group-condemns-hollow-remembrance-on-anzac-day

The original ANZACs, when they returned Europe after 1918, had nothing but disdain for their British overlords who used them as cannon fodder in the name of imperialism. As Bill Gammage famously retorted, while the ANZACs were getting slaughtered at the Nek, the British were on the beach sipping tea. Jingoistic chest beating for King and Empire couldn't have been further from their minds. For them, and for an entire generation of Australians, the 'Anzac spirit' was the rebellious larikin anti-establishment mateship they developed in the trenches, immortalised by CEW Bean. It was really a continuation of Paterson and Lawson's 'Bush Legend' - part myth yes, but still an element of truth. I strongly recommend reading or watching the play The One Day of the Year - to see the disconnect between the sombre and cynical generation of original ANZACs, and the chest beaters of later generations

So all the soldiers are deluded, except the ones who agree with you?

We would have lost democracy and freedoms if the the Germans had won either WWI or WWII. Just because we did not gain democracy and freedom through these wars does not mean we were not genuinely protecting it in these wars. Freedom and democracy are not won once, and then you never have to worry about it again. With the Nazis, this falls into the bleeding obvious category. In WWI, as I have already pointed out, the German leadership was busy winding back democracy and freedom, and whatever society they created out of land they might have won in the war would have been even less democratic.

I sincerely hope you were merely ignorant in describing pre-WWI Germany as having universal male suffrage, and that you couldn't really tell the difference between them and the allies.

The truth is that Australian soldiers were sent to die in Gallipoli so that Jews could invade Palestine.

In 1914, Britain needed Jewish money and US support to fight Germany. Wealthy banking Jews like the Rothschild family agreed to finance Britain's war in exchange for Britain invading Palestine on behalf of the Jews.

The only war Australia has ever fought in its own self-interest was against Japan in WWII - when Labor PM John Curtin ordered Australian troops to defend Australia against Japan instead of fighting a European war. Even this war against Japan may not have eventuated if Australia had not been blindly following Britain's orders in the late 1930's and early 1940's. The interesting thing about the people who signed up for this war against Japan is that they were not the usual young red-neck country hicks who signed up but, rather, a lot of them were city men in their 30's like my own grandfather.

Quote:

The truth is that Australian soldiers were sent to die in Gallipoli so that Jews could invade Palestine.

Always nice to have Muslims letting us know what our troops really died for.


Quote:

The only war Australia has ever fought in its own self-interest was against Japan in WWII - when Labor PM John Curtin ordered Australian troops to defend Australia against Japan instead of fighting a European war. Even this war against Japan may not have eventuated if Australia had not been blindly following Britain's orders in the late 1930's and early 1940's.

Are you suggesting we caused Japan to go on the offensive? WWII was our fault?


Quote:

The interesting thing about the people who signed up for this war against Japan is that they were not the usual young red-neck country hicks who signed up but, rather, a lot of them were city men in their 30's like my own grandfather.

So this is what makes them the only 'non-deluded' soldiers?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

So all the soldiers are deluded, except the ones who agree with you?

What do you expect me to say? You know the opinion I have here, am I supposed to say I don't believe our soldiers fought for our freedom, but the vets who say we did are right too?

Besides, as I keep saying I don't believe its a widely held view. I challenge you to find a single original ANZAC who believed he fought for our freedom - or Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraqi vet. Of course WWII is more understandable, and I grant that comes much closer to fighting for "freedom" - though I still maintain it was about imperial hegemony.


freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

We would have lost democracy and freedoms if the the Germans had won either WWI or WWII.

Laughable. They are on the other side of the world and had no capacity to threaten Australia - even if they wanted to.


freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

In WWI, as I have already pointed out, the German leadership was busy winding back democracy and freedom

So were the British - and Australians for that matter. This tends to happen during wars. The reality was that pre-war Germany was arguably more democratic than Britain.


freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

I sincerely hope you were merely ignorant in describing pre-WWI Germany as having universal male suffrage

The German Empire (until 1918) (and the North German Confederation before it) had had universal male suffrage since 1867/71, which then has been one of the most progressive election laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

LOL?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 4:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 29th, 2014 at 12:50pm: That's because no-one would be stupid enough to suggest they are deluded for thinking they were defending our freedoms. There only seems to be a need to discuss issues like freedom when Muslims are around. Australian soldiers did not fight for our freedoms - and if any veteran actually believes that (and I'm guessing not many do), then they are deluded. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

Sure moslems who live in Australia, respect what ANZAC DAY represents!         :P



True Colours wrote on Aug 18th, 2013 at 9:27pm:
Air is halal, so stop breathing it.

Freedom is UN-ISLAMIC, and all moslems [who are resident within Western hemisphere nations] are hypocrites, by pretending to embrace our freedoms. K9.29

n.b.
We can often see examples around us, of how moslems are exploiting the freedoms that have been gifted to them, by our culture, in how moslems refuse to share those freedoms with other family members, who still see themselves as still 'pressed', under their ISLAMIC cultural control.

It has been exposed many, many, times, that within moslem families [or a moslem group], LIVING HERE IN AUSTRALIA, an ISLAMIC tyranny and bondage is still imposed upon all of the members of the family or a moslem group!

"Freedom, GO TO HELL!"



Do you as a bona fide Australian, really believe that the moslems [who by definition, are all ISLAMISTS] who are resident within Western hemisphere nations have really embraced those freedoms, that were earned by our forefathers [often with their blood!] and gifted to us ?

IMAGE.....
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/freedom-of-expression-go-to-hell.jpg
"Freedom of expression GO TO HELL!"
"Disbelievers must not be permitted to scrutinise or criticise ISLAM!"

n.b.
THE MESSAGE OF THE IMAGE ABOVE - Is that to the moslem psyche, the Jihad against the enemies of Allah's religion, is never considered to be an immoral, or a hypocritical, or an ungrateful act.


+++



Does the moslem living in Australia truly respect AND EMBRACE the freedoms that have been gifted to him, and does he understand and respect the need to keep defending those freedoms ???


Quote:

"[a respected moslem community spokesman has] called on Australian Muslims to spurn secular democracy and Western notions of moderate Islam... ...[moslems in Australia were told] that democracy is "haram" (forbidden) for Muslims, whose political engagement should be be based purely on Islamic law. "We must adhere to Islam and Islam alone," Mr Hanif [said]"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/australia-members-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-say-country-is-god-forsaken-and-that-muslims-must-shun-secular-a.html

Quote:

What do you expect me to say? You know the opinion I have here, am I supposed to say I don't believe our soldiers fought for our freedom, but the vets who say we did are right too?

I expect you to suck it up and be objective. You let me down, every time.


Quote:

Of course WWII is more understandable, and I grant that comes much closer to fighting for "freedom" - though I still maintain it was about imperial hegemony.

Can you elaborate on 'imperial hegemony'? Is this the 'non-imperial' type of imperialism? Where some vague and elusive force is pulling all the strings and we are just pretending?


Quote:

Laughable. They are on the other side of the world and had no capacity to threaten Australia - even if they wanted to.

So the British could colonise Australia in the 1700s, but the tyranny of distance would have been too great for 1950s victorious Germany?

Even if the threat was not direct, there were plenty of indirect, but equally dire threats. With all our allies defeated, it is highly likely that we would have ended up part of the Japanese empire, German empire, Italian empire, any new empire that sprung up to take the 'leftovers', or even an internal reactionary threat. It's a big world, and we would have been one of the few remaining liberal democracies, with few sympathetic ears.


Quote:

So were the British - and Australians for that matter. This tends to happen during wars.

Before the war Gandalf. They did not merely suspend some institutions in the immediate cause of fighting a war, but had a long history going in the opposite direction to us. While Australia and our allies were setting impressive new standards for freedom and democracy, the German leadership was systematically winding them back.


Quote:

The reality was that pre-war Germany was arguably more democratic than Britain.

Quote:

The German Empire (until 1918) (and the North German Confederation before it) had had universal male suffrage since 1867/71, which then has been one of the most progressive election laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage LOL?

LOL indeed. I posted the same information for you on the Islam board yesterday. You obviously didn't read very far.

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

The German Empire (German: Deutsches Reich or Deutsches Kaiserreich) was the historical German nation state[6] that existed from the unification of Germany in 1871 to the defeat in World War 1 in 1918
The German Empire consisted of 27 constituent territories (most of them ruled by royal families).

Although authoritarian in many respects, the empire had some democratic features. Besides universal suffrage, it permitted the development of political parties. Bismarck's intention was to create a constitutional façade which would mask the continuation of authoritarian policies. In the process, he created a system with a serious flaw. There was a significant disparity between the Prussian and German electoral systems. Prussia used a highly restrictive three-class voting system in which the richest third of the population could choose 85% of the legislature, all but assuring a conservative majority. As mentioned above, the king and (with two exceptions) the prime minister of Prussia were also the emperor and chancellor of the empire – meaning that the same rulers had to seek majorities from legislatures elected from completely different franchises. As mentioned above, rural areas were grossly overrepresented from the 1890s onward.

In contrast, the milestones of some of our allies:

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

The United Kingdom
    1807: The U.K. Slave Trade Act banned the trade across the British Empire after which the Royal Navy began to combat foreign slave traders.
    1832: The passing of the Reform Act, which gave representation to previously under represented urban areas and extended the franchise to a wider population.
    1833: The U.K. passed the Slavery Abolition Act.
1848: Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March of that year, in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[91]
1848: Following the French, the Revolutions of 1848, although in many instances forcefully put down, did result in democratic constitutions in some other European countries among them Denmark and Netherlands.
1850s: introduction of the secret ballot in Australia; 1872 in UK; 1892 in USA
1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.
1870: USA – 15th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibits voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
1879 and 1880: William Ewart Gladstone's UK Midlothian campaign ushered in the modern political campaign.
1893: New Zealand is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879).

Now, try sucking it up and being objective - how you you really think democracy would have fared in a Europe run by the German Empire or the Nazis?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

LOL indeed. I posted the same information for you on the Islam board yesterday. You obviously didn't read very far.

You just posted an article that confirmed again that Germany had universal male suffrage.

LOL indeed.

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

Even if the threat was not direct, there were plenty of indirect, but equally dire threats. With all our allies defeated, it is highly likely that we would have ended up part of the Japanese empire, German empire, Italian empire, any new empire that sprung up to take the 'leftovers', or even an internal reactionary threat. It's a big world, and we would have been one of the few remaining liberal democracies, with few sympathetic ears.

On planet earth, the absolute very best any of the axis powers could have hoped for was to reach agreeable terms with the existing world economic hegemons - ie Britain and the US. And by that I mean being recognised as equal economic players that could participate on equal terms in the Anglo-dominated economic markets. And in fact there's fairly little disagreement amongst historians that this was all they wanted - even after launching unjustified attacks against the anglo-powers. Again, read AJP Taylor for more details. For example Hitler was genuinely surprised that Britain didn't come to the bargaining table after Hitler overran France. To him, defeating France (and the British expeditionary force sent to defend France) was just a necessary thing to do to get Britain to listen to Germany's grievances about not getting a fair stake on the global markets. Arguably the same thing happened during WWI.

Thats not to say for one moment that Germany or Japan were justified in their attacks - they were egregious acts of aggression - the "supreme crime", as Chief Justice Jackson described it at Nuremburg, from which all other crimes - including genocide - spawn from. So absolutely it was a good thing that they were defeated, but it doesn't change the fact that in defeating them, Britain and the US were defending their hegemonic position on the world markets.

Quote:

You just posted an article that confirmed again that Germany had universal male suffrage.

Did you intend to mislead people when you described it that way, or was it merely an accident borne of you ignorance of 'democracy' in the pre WWI German Empire?


Quote:

On planet earth, the absolute very best any of the axis powers could have hoped for was to reach agreeable terms with the existing world economic hegemons - ie Britain and the US.

Crap. Wars change things. They can bring down empires. They can build new ones. The best they could hope for was to win the war and dictate the outcome themselves.


Quote:

And in fact there's fairly little disagreement amongst historians that this was all they wanted - even after launching unjustified attacks against the anglo-powers.

Find me a historian who thinks a victorious Germany would have demanded nothing but equality.


Quote:

So absolutely it was a good thing that they were defeated, but it doesn't change the fact that in defeating them, Britain and the US were defending their hegemonic position on the world markets.

Were they defending freedom and democracy?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 9:01pm:

Crap. Wars change things. They can bring down empires. They can build new ones. The best they could hope for was to win the war and dictate the outcome themselves.

I think you're confusing "win the war" to mean physically overrunning the western powers and completely dismantling the world order that existed at the time - or something to that effect.

The reality was that Germany and Japan - and even Italy, lashed out because they wanted to participate in the existing world order as equals - not dismantle it.

Even Germany's attempt to prepare an invasion of Britain was half-hearted and was arguably just another "raising of the stakes" by Hitler to get Britain's attention. Certainly his preference was to cooperate with Britain rather than to conquer her.

Quote:

I think you're confusing "win the war" to mean physically overrunning the western powers and completely dismantling the world order that existed at the time - or something to that effect.

When the allies defeated Germany in WWI, they replaced Bismarck's faux-democracy with a real one. They did the same after WWII. What do you think the Germans would have done? They were already an empire cobbled together of disparate groups. They may have taken a lot. They may have taken a little and set up client states in the rest. Bottom line is, it would have been very bad news for democracy in Eruope.


Quote:

The reality was that Germany and Japan - and even Italy, lashed out because they wanted to participate in the existing world order as equals - not dismantle it.

Crap. Germany was an old style empire with a democratic facade and wanted an even bigger old style empire with a bigger facade. You made the appeal to authority. Now go and find me a credible historian who believes Germany would have established some kind of equality between existing European states. Or admit you are full of crap.


Quote:

Even Germany's attempt to prepare an invasion of Britain was half-hearted and was arguably just another "raising of the stakes" by Hitler to get Britain's attention.

Yes. Someone who kills all those people as a half hearted attention getting exercise has nothing but good intentions and can be trusted to reshape European geopolitics.


Quote:

Certainly his preference was to cooperate with Britain rather than to conquer her.

So Germany was the man, seeking relations with a female Britain? And he wanted to be gentle, but Britain forced him to play rough?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 10:15pm:

Crap. Germany was an old style empire with a democratic facade and wanted an even bigger old style empire with a bigger facade. You made the appeal to authority. Now go and find me a credible historian who believes Germany would have established some kind of equality between existing European states. Or admit you are full of crap.

Dear me, now why would I try and prove something I never claimed?

See if you can understand the difference:
a) making the powers that be recognise - by force if necessary - that you are a serious player and have a right to participate on the world markets equally and fairly with the big guns
b) conquer the world - then 'establish some kind of equality between existing European states' - presumably just out of the goodness of your heart.

The two are very different - one is my claim, the other is not. Can you guess which is which?

If you've worked it out, then we can talk about the Treaty of Versailles and forcefully shutting down German industry and keeping them out of global markets. Whats interesting about all this is for a brief period things were looking up  - the Dawes Plan, Kellog-Briand Pact, and the west almost looked like they were going to welcome Germany into the fold. Then Wall St happened, and US cooperation and investment suddenly evaporated. Germany languished in the depression, while the west ramped up their demand for reparations. Germany responded by voting in Hitler - and the rest as they say is history.

Quote:

If you've worked it out, then we can talk about the Treaty of Versailles

Is this relevant to what Germany would have done, had they won WWI?

What do you think the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if they had won? Or is this getting too off topic for you?

Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy? You appeared to be trying to disagree with this with your spin about Germany having universal male suffrage. Were you just throwing in a red herring for the fun of it? Perhaps you have been reading some of Bismarck's old propaganda?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy?

One third of men in Britain had no right to vote and neither did 100% of the women. By my calculation that means a majority of the population could not vote. Are we going to spin this as a democracy? I'm not.


freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

You appeared to be trying to disagree with this with your spin about Germany having universal male suffrage.

I was disagreeing with your simplistic nonsense that the war was a black and white case of the forces of democracy vs the forces of anti-democracy.

And yeah, Germany had universal male suffrage - deal with it.

Quote:

One third of men in Britain had no right to vote and neither did 100% of the women. By my calculation that means a majority of the population could not vote. Are we going to spin this as a democracy? I'm not.

Many of the allied countries had universal suffrage. Britain was heading that way. Germany was heading in the opposite direction. It was building a facade of democracy. This is quite obvious and transparent, yet here you are trotting out the facade as evidence, as if you are some ignorant 19th century German hick who does know what happens to his ballot after he casts it.

Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy?


Quote:

I was disagreeing with your simplistic nonsense that the war was a black and white case of the forces of democracy vs the forces of anti-democracy.

Would you mind quoting what I actually posted? I think you'll find it captures the reality of the situation very well. In contrast your claim about Germany having universal male suffrage appears designed to mislead. Was this deliberate, or borne of ignorance?


Quote:

And yeah, Germany had universal male suffrage - deal with it.

Yes they did. And the Kaiser wiped his arse with most of the votes. Were you aware of this when you made the claim? Was your intention to mislead people about the nature of democracy in the German Empire? I am not disagreeing with you, so there is no need to repeat yourself. I am just asking you whether you intended to deceive by taking advantage of people's tendency to equate universal suffrage with other democratic concepts like 'one man, one vote'.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

Quote: If you've worked it out, then we can talk about the Treaty of Versailles Is this relevant to what Germany would have done, had they won WWI? What do you think the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if they had won?

At the start of WWI Germany was more democratic than Britain - every man over 25 could vote in German parliamentary elections, whereas universal suffrage for men did not occur in Britain until 1918. Germany was one of the most democratic countries in Europe and had one of the most generous and comprehensive welfare systems in the world at the time.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy?

There was no democracy to protect, so I don't know what you are going on about.

Britain entered WWI to stand up for 19th century liberal values - ie maintenance of the status quo vis-a-vis the independence of the existing states, and upholding the rule of law. The catalyst here was the invasion of Belgium, though obviously the roots of the issue go back a lot further back.

Germany was not a democracy, Britain was not a democracy, and Russia (fighting with the allies) were the least democractic of all. Neither side entered the war in order to defend or attack democracy, and nor was the defense of it a necessary side-effect of the commencement of hostilities. In fact every side was guilty of winding back any democratic institutions that existed in their respective country once the fighting started - as would be expected.


freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Yes they did. And the Kaiser wiped his arse with most of the votes. Were you aware of this when you made the claim? Was your intention to mislead people about the nature of democracy in the German Empire? I am not disagreeing with you, so there is no need to repeat yourself. I am just asking you whether you intended to deceive by taking advantage of people's tendency to equate universal suffrage with other democratic concepts like 'one man, one vote'.

My my, someone certainly has a bee in their bonnet about this.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:00pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy? There was no democracy to protect, so I don't know what you are going on about. Britain entered WWI to stand up for 19th century liberal values - ie maintenance of the status quo vis-a-vis the independence of the existing states, and upholding the rule of law. The catalyst here was the invasion of Belgium, though obviously the roots of the issue go back a lot further back. Germany was not a democracy, Britain was not a democracy, and Russia (fighting with the allies) were the least democractic of all. Neither side entered the war in order to defend or attack democracy, and nor was the defense of it a necessary side-effect of the commencement of hostilities. In fact every side was guilty of winding back any democratic institutions that existed in their respective country once the fighting started - as would be expected. freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Yes they did. And the Kaiser wiped his arse with most of the votes. Were you aware of this when you made the claim? Was your intention to mislead people about the nature of democracy in the German Empire? I am not disagreeing with you, so there is no need to repeat yourself. I am just asking you whether you intended to deceive by taking advantage of people's tendency to equate universal suffrage with other democratic concepts like 'one man, one vote'. My my, someone certainly has a bee in their bonnet about this.

The fvckn cheek, Gandy, with all remaining and rapidly diminishing  respect -  a Muslim pulling up ANYONE on the finer points of democracy??!!?? Come the caliphate, you guys would hunt down and exterminate anyone who so much as said the word democracy. 

Yet here you are, presuming to offer 'insight' as if it was sincere and honest.


More cheek like a baboon's arse, pal.  Where the ^&** do you get orf?

Mazel tov!!!
:P

Quote:

At the start of WWI Germany was more democratic than Britain - every man over 25 could vote in German parliamentary elections

What is it with muslims and this nonsense?

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

The German Empire (German: Deutsches Reich or Deutsches Kaiserreich) was the historical German nation state[6] that existed from the unification of Germany in 1871 to the defeat in World War 1 in 1918
The German Empire consisted of 27 constituent territories (most of them ruled by royal families).

Although authoritarian in many respects, the empire had some democratic features. Besides universal suffrage, it permitted the development of political parties. Bismarck's intention was to create a constitutional façade which would mask the continuation of authoritarian policies. In the process, he created a system with a serious flaw. There was a significant disparity between the Prussian and German electoral systems. Prussia used a highly restrictive three-class voting system in which the richest third of the population could choose 85% of the legislature, all but assuring a conservative majority. As mentioned above, the king and (with two exceptions) the prime minister of Prussia were also the emperor and chancellor of the empire – meaning that the same rulers had to seek majorities from legislatures elected from completely different franchises. As mentioned above, rural areas were grossly overrepresented from the 1890s onward.


Quote:

There was no democracy to protect, so I don't know what you are going on about.

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

The United Kingdom
    1807: The U.K. Slave Trade Act banned the trade across the British Empire after which the Royal Navy began to combat foreign slave traders.
    1832: The passing of the Reform Act, which gave representation to previously under represented urban areas and extended the franchise to a wider population.
    1833: The U.K. passed the Slavery Abolition Act.
1848: Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March of that year, in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[91]
1848: Following the French, the Revolutions of 1848, although in many instances forcefully put down, did result in democratic constitutions in some other European countries among them Denmark and Netherlands.
1850s: introduction of the secret ballot in Australia; 1872 in UK; 1892 in USA
1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.
1870: USA – 15th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibits voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
1879 and 1880: William Ewart Gladstone's UK Midlothian campaign ushered in the modern political campaign.
1893: New Zealand is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879).


Quote:

Germany was not a democracy, Britain was not a democracy, and Russia (fighting with the allies) were the least democractic of all. Neither side entered the war in order to defend or attack democracy, and nor was the defense of it a necessary side-effect of the commencement of hostilities.

You are having trouble answering the question here Gandalf. I will repeat it for you. Hopefully by now you are realising that I chose the words carefully.

Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy?

What do you think the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if the Germans had won?


Quote:

My my, someone certainly has a bee in their bonnet about this.

Do you agree that the way you and TC described the German Empire, and continue to describe it, is likely to mislead? Was this deliberate, or borne of ignorance?

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Many of the allied countries had universal suffrage. Britain was heading that way.

Britain adopted universal suffrage in a desperate reaction to the revolution and rise of communism in Russia.

Iran adopted universal suffrage in 1906. Britian quickly stepped in to support the anti-democratic Shah Reza. The Shah then curtailed the powers of the parliament in 1907. So much for Britain spreading democracy and freedom.

Quote:

Britain adopted universal suffrage in a desperate reaction to the revolution and rise of communism in Russia.

;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:00pm:

Britain was not a democracy

and is still not.

The upper house of the British parliament has 92 seats that are inherited, the rest are appointed. There are 26 Anglican bishops and 2 rabbis sitting in the house of lords - none democratically elected.

Soren wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:10pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 9:00pm: freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy? There was no democracy to protect, so I don't know what you are going on about. Britain entered WWI to stand up for 19th century liberal values - ie maintenance of the status quo vis-a-vis the independence of the existing states, and upholding the rule of law. The catalyst here was the invasion of Belgium, though obviously the roots of the issue go back a lot further back. Germany was not a democracy, Britain was not a democracy, and Russia (fighting with the allies) were the least democractic of all. Neither side entered the war in order to defend or attack democracy, and nor was the defense of it a necessary side-effect of the commencement of hostilities. In fact every side was guilty of winding back any democratic institutions that existed in their respective country once the fighting started - as would be expected. freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Yes they did. And the Kaiser wiped his arse with most of the votes. Were you aware of this when you made the claim? Was your intention to mislead people about the nature of democracy in the German Empire? I am not disagreeing with you, so there is no need to repeat yourself. I am just asking you whether you intended to deceive by taking advantage of people's tendency to equate universal suffrage with other democratic concepts like 'one man, one vote'. My my, someone certainly has a bee in their bonnet about this. The fvckn cheek, Gandy, with all remaining and rapidly diminishing  respect -  a Muslim pulling up ANYONE on the finer points of democracy??!!?? Come the caliphate, you guys would hunt down and exterminate anyone who so much as said the word democracy.  Yet here you are, presuming to offer 'insight' as if it was sincere and honest.

And here’s the dirty old Hun pretending to make a contribution.

Bitter old boy Kaiser posts. So insightful, so sincere and honest.

I blame the Muselman. Ever tried their cheese?

Deplorable.

True Colours wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Many of the allied countries had universal suffrage. Britain was heading that way. Britain adopted universal suffrage in a desperate reaction to the revolution and rise of communism in Russia. Iran adopted universal suffrage in 1906. Britian quickly stepped in to support the anti-democratic Shah Reza. The Shah then curtailed the powers of the parliament in 1907. So much for Britain spreading democracy and freedom.

Ah yes, the Brittanic legacy. Iran is one of the chief beneficiaries.

I blame Islam. Typical.

Fancy istalling an Amerikan shah and not even having Freedom.

Ridiculous.

freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 9:35pm:

You are having trouble answering the question here Gandalf. I will repeat it for you. Hopefully by now you are realising that I chose the words carefully. Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy?

Apparently responding with things like " Neither side entered the war in order to defend or attack democracy, and nor was the defense of it a necessary side-effect of the commencement of hostilities" and "there was no democracy to protect" wasn't quite clear enough. So let me phrase it another way...

NO

Apparently also, this riveting debate about the democratic institutions of Britain and Germany prior to WWI proves the case that Australia fought each and every one of its wars to protect Australia's freedom and democracy. FD will happilly argue (obfuscate?) for another 100 pages about how the Kaiser rubbed his arse with his people's votes - and somehow believe its relevant to why Australians sailed to the other side of the world to invade Turkey - or why we joined an attack on a local liberation/independence movement in Vietnam half a century later for that matter.

Absolutely anything to sustain the fairy tale that Australia would never ever have joined a military cause that wasn't all about nobly protecting our democracy and freedoms - and to demonise anyone who suggests we did as vile, freedom-hating muslims.

I don’t think that’s clear enough, G. Any way you can make it clearer for FD?

Maybe you could just put. YES.

He’d understand that..Much more Free that way.

Quote:

Apparently also, this riveting debate about the democratic institutions of Britain and Germany prior to WWI proves the case that Australia fought each and every one of its wars to protect Australia's freedom and democracy.

What I said was, we fought on the side of freedom and democracy. I also think our democracy would have been at great risk if the other major democracies had fallen. They had not been around very long and the march of freedom and democracy may have gone into reverse.


Quote:

FD will happilly argue (obfuscate?) for another 100 pages about how the Kaiser rubbed his arse with his people's votes - and somehow believe its relevant to why Australians sailed to the other side of the world to invade Turkey

It is relevant because it highlights your efforts to deliberately misrepresent the nayture of democracy in the German Empire.

Going back to this claim you and the other Muslim keep making:


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29^th, 2014 at 7:06pm:

So were the British - and Australians for that matter. This tends to happen during wars. The reality was that pre-war Germany was arguably more democratic than Britain.

It was only 'arguably' more democratic if you set out to deliberately mislead people about the nature of democracy in the German Empire. In reality, the following allies (at the least) were far more democratic than the German empire:

France
Britain
United States
South Africa
Canada
Australia New Zealand

Furthermore, all of these countries were on a clear path towards greater democratic rights, whereas the Kaiser was busy dismantling the remnants of democratic institutions inherited from the French. Germany's main ally, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was still a traditional monarchy and had not benefited from the French revolution.

Trying to spin this as anything but being on the side of democracy is blatant misrepresentation.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 7:54pm:

What I said was, we fought on the side of freedom and democracy.

;D Whats that you say now FD? Merely "on the side" of freedom and democracy, no longer fought for democracy?


freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 6:31pm:

The reality is that Australians, and westerners in general, have killed millions of people in defense of our freedom, and we will do it again if necessary.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

All the wars we have fought, and the people who have died to protect our freedom

Quote:

Whats that you say now FD? Merely "on the side" of freedom and democracy, no longer fought for democracy?

Of course we were fighting for democracy. Germany winning WWI would have destroyed democracy in Europe. By fighting in WWI, Australia and our allies were protecting democracy. What I was not claiming, and never have, was that this was our sole reason for entering WWI. Wars are always messy affairs, yet we have consistently fought on the side of democracy, and our actions have helped to protect democracy.

What do you think the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if the Germans had won?

Do you agree that the way you and TC described the German Empire, and continue to describe it, is likely to mislead? Was this deliberate, or borne of ignorance?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 8:50pm:

What do you think the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if the Germans had won?

My thats a loaded question FD. There are about a thousand different possible scenarios that fit under the heading "if the Germans had won": define "winning" - was it defeat and occupation of all her enemies? Or only some, and reach agreeable terms with the others? Was it defeat of her enemies but withdrawal with the annexation of pieces of claimed territory like the Franco-Prussian war?

But if you are envisaging a scenario where Germany completely overruns the civilized world and dismantles all democratic institutions and builds a new German world order - then you are dreaming. In my view, the only realistic scenario where "the Germans had won" is one in which they obtained favourable terms from Britain and France vis-a-vis their imperialistic ambitions outside Europe, and fair access to outside markets.
Defeat and submission of Russia would probably be expected - but thats a case of a despot defeating a despot.

In short, I think European democracy would have worked out fine in the event of the Kaiser winning the war.


freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 8:50pm:

yet we have consistently fought on the side of democracy

consistently or always?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 10:37pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 30th, 2014 at 9:35pm: You are having trouble answering the question here Gandalf. I will repeat it for you. Hopefully by now you are realising that I chose the words carefully. Do you agree that by fighting in WWI, the allies were protecting democracy? Apparently responding with things like " Neither side entered the war in order to defend or attack democracy, and nor was the defense of it a necessary side-effect of the commencement of hostilities" and "there was no democracy to protect" wasn't quite clear enough. So let me phrase it another way... NO Apparently also, this riveting debate about the democratic institutions of Britain and Germany prior to WWI proves the case that Australia fought each and every one of its wars to protect Australia's freedom and democracy. FD will happilly argue (obfuscate?) for another 100 pages about how the Kaiser rubbed his arse with his people's votes - and somehow believe its relevant to why Australians sailed to the other side of the world to invade Turkey - or why we joined an attack on a local liberation/independence movement in Vietnam half a century later for that matter. Absolutely anything to sustain the fairy tale that Australia would never ever have joined a military cause that wasn't all about nobly protecting our democracy and freedoms - and to demonise anyone who suggests we did as vile, freedom-hating muslims.

Tendentious nonsense.  The first shot in WWI was fired by Australia against a German ship.   Funnily enough, the same thing happened in WWII.

Quote:

In my view, the only realistic scenario where "the Germans had won" is one in which they obtained favourable terms from Britain and France vis-a-vis their imperialistic ambitions outside Europe, and fair access to outside markets.

So the German Empire defeats France and Britain, and forces them to be nice?


Quote:

Defeat and submission of Russia would probably be expected - but thats a case of a despot defeating a despot

Why would the west and east be so different?


Quote:

consistently or always?

I can't think of a war where we fought against democracy. Can you?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 9:44pm:

So the German Empire defeats France and Britain, and forces them to be nice?

Basically yes


freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 9:44pm:

Why would the west and east be so different?

Read some history FD - this is what happened in reality - Germany reached a stalemate against France and Britain, but defeated Russia.

I am not asking you who they defeated. I am asking you what the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if they had won in Europe. You cannot use the fact that the actual outcome was a 'stalemate' as evidence for what they would have done if they had won. That's like claiming that Germany's only intention was to establish democracy in Germany, because that is what ended up happening.

I am not sure whether this is simple naivete on your part - that an old fashioned empire defeating the new European democracies would have been neutral for democracy, or a desperate attempt to knock the achievements of our soldiers and what they have fought to protect. To the Muslim, anything that undermines western values is a good thing, even if that includes insisting our soldiers did nothing for democracy and the German Empire had benign intentions for Europe.

Oh, look - FD asks questions.

A glorious new day. Looks like FD’s converted back to Freedom.

You can ask questions too Karnal. I might even answer them, if I can figure out what you are on about.

Here it is in the form of a statement. Both Gandalf and TC set out to deliberately mislead with their claims about democracy in the German Empire. Gandalf's insistence that German victory in either world war would have been benign for democracy is delusional. Contrary to what Gandalf has claimed, our troops did fight for freedom and democracy and their actions have made the world a freer and more democratic place.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 10:07pm:

I am asking you what the outcome would have been for democracy in Europe if they had won in Europe.

Answered in reply# 60.

Start by defining "won".


freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2014 at 10:07pm:

I am not sure whether this is simple naivete on your part - that an old fashioned empire defeating the new European democracies would have been neutral for democracy, or a desperate attempt to knock the achievements of our soldiers and what they have fought to protect.

Here you go again - what is "defeating the new European democracies" - exactly. If you can't define this, then you certainly can't define what it would have meant for European democracy. Going on past record, Germany never exhibited these "old fashioned empire" tendencies towards its western foes that you carp on about - history indicates that they were only interested in consolidating their dominance of central Europe, and maintain a proactive strategy for avoiding encirclement by the western and eastern powers. The Franco Prussian war and its aftermath reflects the reality of Germany strategic ambitions against the west - defeat, impose terms, withdraw. French democracy kept chugging along just fine despite their defeat to the Germans.

Quote:

Germany never exhibited these "old fashioned empire" tendencies towards its western foes that you carp on about

You mean they kept losing the wars, rather than conquering them? Yes I can see how this might be a bit confusing for someone who cannot tell the difference between winning and losing a war. Is Germany's loss merely an expression of a different form of imperialism?


Quote:

history indicates that they were only interested in consolidating their dominance of central Europe, and maintain a proactive strategy for avoiding encirclement by the western and eastern powers

Right. A central European empire only wanted to dominate central Europe, and feared being surrounded by their neighbours.


Quote:

The Franco Prussian war and its aftermath reflects the reality of Germany strategic ambitions against the west - defeat, impose terms, withdraw. French democracy kept chugging along just fine despite their defeat to the Germans.

Crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

The conflict emerged from tensions regarding German unification. In his memoirs written long after the war, Prussian Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck wrote: "I always considered that a war with France would naturally follow a war against Austria...I was convinced that the gulf which was created over time between the north and the south of Germany could not be better overcome than by a national war against the neighboring people who were aggressive against us. I did not doubt that it was necessary to make a French-German war before the general reorganization of Germany could be realized."

Germany barely existed at the time. Bismarck's strategic ambition at the time of the franco-pruissian war was to create an empire out of those disparate states. All empires start small. This does not mean they are not empires. It does not mean that whatever size an empire reached was the only size it's leaders ever wanted to achieve. This is no less stupid than your argument that Germany would have not done anything to France if they had won WWI because there was a military stalemate.

FD where is the evidence that Bismark wanted to build a western empire by conquering, occupying and overthrowing western governments? There isn't, its pure fantasy. Bismark spent virtually his entire career building up a complex system of alliances and deterrences precisely to maintain the status quo and protect Germany from an encirclement attack. Or in other words, the completely opposite to the nonsense you are sprouting here.


freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 8:35am:

your argument that Germany would have not done anything to France if they had won WWI because there was a military stalemate.

Try for once quoting what I actually say.

Quote:

FD where is the evidence that Bismark wanted to build a western empire by conquering, occupying and overthrowing western governments?

You don't have to occupy a country very long to destroy the democracy. If you occupy it long enough to defeat their army, that's about how long it takes.

The Kaiser was not some kind of ideologue who worshipped the status quo. He used the franco-prussian war to seize power over a broad group of nation-states. The only status quo he sought to preserve was his own grip on power. That was threatened by WWI. He realised that a victorious France and Britain would probably set up a proper democracy. He was not as naive as you.

When an emperor is under threat, they seek to maintain the status quo. However it is pure delusional naivete to equate this with doing nothing more than maintaining the status quo when they find themselves victorious over several nieghbouring countries.

I have challenged you several times already to come up with a single credible historian who shared your naivete that a victorious Germany would have been no threat to the emerging democracies in Europe. You claimed they agreed with you. Your argument is nothing more than a more convoluted version of insisting that what actually happened in WWI is the ultimate guide to what would have happened if the Germans had won.

The Kaiser spent his career undermining democracy to maintain his grip on power. It is inevitable that had he won, he would have, at best, set up undemocratic client regimes in conquered countries.

The Kaiser also appeared to think that Africa was part of central Europe and would have expanded his empire there, if given the chance.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

I have challenged you several times already to come up with a single credible historian who shared your naivete that a victorious Germany would have been no threat to the emerging democracies in Europe.

And I have challenged you several times already to adequately define a "victorious Germany". Until you can, its simply absurd to try and explain what this meaningless phrase would mean for democracy in Europe.

Africa?

Do you mean to say the Kaiser would have expanded his empire into all the African colonies Britain and France had set up as proper demokracies?

Please explain, FD.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

The Kaiser also appeared to think that Africa was part of central Europe and would have expanded his empire there, if given the chance.

Of course he would have - he wanted to 'play with the big boys' in the game of control and exploit as much of the 'tinted' people's land as possible. Thats what I mean by wanting 'fair' access to the international markets (which is really just a euphemism for brutally occupied and exploited tinted peoples).

But regarding his 'civilized' neighbours, the kaiser - and especially Bismark generally played by the rules of 19th century liberalism - don't interfere (too much) with the sovereignty of your civilized neighbours. There is nothing to suggest that Bismark's intricate and delicate system of alliances and deterrences was anything other than a strategy to consolidate Germany's status as the central power, and protect itself against allied attack. In fact, Bismark's doctrines were based, more than anything else, around the inevitability that France would eventually attack in revenge for their defeat during the Franco-Prussian war.

It’s hard to say what would, or should have happened, G. One thing, however, is certain: Germany now outperforms every other European state economically.

If Hitler had kept his nose out of everyone else’s business, Germany would almost certainly have become the dominant European -and world - power much earlier. It would also not have had to rely on multinational organizations like the EU and IMF to do so.

Germany’s destiny is not yet achieved, but its place in the EU holds it back from world domination, just as it was intended by players like France.

WWI was a purely imperial war. There was no Freeedom attached to it. WWII was different. Hitler had to be stopped. However, the liberatory motives of the war changed at the Bretton Woods Conference. Here, at the end of the war, WWII became purely imperial - this time, in the US’s favour.

Bretton Woods established the new form of empire the US became. By siezing and keeping the world’s gold reserves in WWII, the US dollar became the currency for global trade. This, along with US  manufacturing dominance after Germany was quashed, gave the US its hegemony. It’s why the US never had to militarily occupy the countries it came to colonise.

But what makes a colony? Certainly not military occupation - most in the British empire, for example, ceeded rule voluntarily. British governors in most cases were little more than figureheads - like many elected presidents of peripheral ex-colonies today.

A colony exists for its labour and resources. The real power-holders in any colony are those who control the wealth. A colonial administration or elected government does little more than broker the contracts and skim the profits.

This is why it matters little whether Mother pours the tea, or a Suharto or a Marcos or a Mubarak. The reason these military rulers succeeded is they were able to keep their populations down. The reason they succeeded is they actively surpressed Freeedom, and were rewarded by the global military and business community for doing so.

By isolating Germany and keeping them away from the spoils of colonialism, the allied powers helped to make Germany smarter. If Germany had won WWII, it most likely have become bloated and inefficient, but who knows? Even communism did not hold Germany down for long. Angela Merkel was an Ostie - a chemical engineer and member of the Communist Party. East Germany was an advanced technological nation, despite its political system, which of course held it back.

These skills are the legacy, I think, of Bismark. But like many countries, Germany struggles between two opposing sets of values: old boy militarism the one side, and on the other,  the best philosophy of the Enlightenment and European revolutionary period, post-1848.

For thinkers like Adorno and Horkheimer, these sides were inextricable - Nazism is the telos of the Enlightenment.

For me, I’m unsure. Germany today is a very enlightened, environmentally responsible and prosperous country. It has some of the lowest emissions in the world, some of the highest wages, and it is still a manufacturing giant. It is as close as a large industrial population can be to being a genuine democracy.

Maybe its defeat in war did it some good. Maybe it did us all some good. In the short term, it definitely did the US some good, but in the long run, with competing German exports and the common market of the EU, it may not be so good for the US at all.

good summary K, I mostly agree with all you say.


Melanias purse wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 1:49pm:

WWI was a purely imperial war. There was no Freeedom attached to it. WWII was different. Hitler had to be stopped.

Hitler had to be stopped because he was threatening the existing Anglo-French dominated world order. While the colonies were rapidly dissapearing, the rise of Hitler and the start of WWII was still very much a function of Germany reacting to being denied a "fair" share of the big global exploitation pie. The instrument of this denial was the Treaty of Versailles, which was nothing more than a spiteful kick in the groin to the vanquished, deliberately designed to be painful for the sake of being painful. It was the first time in history in which the victor imposed reparations on the vanquished for the cost of the war. This was arguably the bitterest pill for Germany to swallow - having the blame for starting the war dumped squarely at their feet while it was obvious to any objective observer that all sides played their part. But it was partly understandable, since the harsh terms were driven by a bitter France, who bore the brunt of the catastrophic economic and landscape destruction on the western front. The more level heads in Britain and the US understood straight away how unconstructive the French terms would be, but were either too tired or sympathetic enough to France to raise much objection.

This is the prism through which we need to view the rise of Hitler and the start of WWII. Of course that is not for one moment saying he was blameless, or that it was wrong to fight him - a monster of your own creation is still a monster that needs to be stopped.

Perhaps going even further, its more accurate to view the pre-WWI and pre-WWII circumstances as the one continuum: that the Treaty of Versailles was the western powers reacting harshly to an attack on their economic hegemony by an ambitious but stifled Germany, but that ambition from Germany only grew in the face of further humiliation and suppression. And central to Hitler's rise was the sympathy and crucial backing he got from the aristocratic Junker class - who controlled the military. Yes they cringed at Hitler's racist ideology and agenda, but his nationalistic appeal to the injustice of Versailles and western oppression was music to their ears. And remembering of course that it was this same Prussian elite that formed the backbone of the nationalistic, militaristic culture that drove German unity, and her subsequent imperial ambitions in the late 19th century. This proud institution wasn't quashed into irrelevance by the defeat of WWI, it thrived and became even more militant in the post war period - fueled in no small part by Ludendorff inventing the "stab in the back" mythology.

Undemocratic? Aggressive? You betcha. But when you dominate the economy of the world, and very purposefully set up mechanisms to not only deprive a competitor from partaking in the international market you created, but actively suppress it so it can never challenge you, then its a complete copout to play the victim and cry about attacks on democracy when that ostrasised and suppressed competitor creates an aggressive monstor as a direct result of being ostrasised and oppressed out of prosperity.

Right. And this is the lesson to be applied to China today.

If the US attempts to isolate China - as many of the old hawks, neo-cons and shrieking-heads on Fox News want to do - China will feel justified to do exactly the same as Hitler.

As Kissenger argues, the only way to build the new global order is engagement. Isolation has never worked. It’s hardly stopped Iran from being an important geopolitical player (and forced it into a wary partnership with China).

None of this has to do with Freeedom. It’s about access to markets, resources, and that pre-modern phenomenon, the military alliance.

The League of Nations was an interesting player in the story you’ve outlined, G. Where it failed was not bringing the US in as a member - one of the League’s major objectives. It finally got Germany, but only when they’d become Nazis. The diplomatic world between the wars was divided between British colonialists, French idealists, and American exceptionalists. The Russians were bogged down in civil war and purges, and the Krauts were biding their time as future world dominators.

Melanias purse wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 4:43pm:

None of this has to do with Freeedom. It’s about access to markets, resources, and that pre-modern phenomenon, the military alliance.

amen.

Quote:

And I have challenged you several times already to adequately define a "victorious Germany". Until you can, its simply absurd to try and explain what this meaningless phrase would mean for democracy in Europe.

It's quite simple Gandalf. They win the war. There is only one way to do that.


Quote:

Do you mean to say the Kaiser would have expanded his empire into all the African colonies Britain and France had set up as proper demokracies?

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

1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.

This was before the German Empire even came into existence, and before Bismark started winding back the democratic institutions inherited from the French.

Not that he necessarily would have expanded more into Africa. He may have preferred a mostly European Empire.


Quote:

But regarding his 'civilized' neighbours, the kaiser - and especially Bismark generally played by the rules of 19th century liberalism - don't interfere (too much) with the sovereignty of your civilized neighbours.

Crap. He had already built an empire by swallowing his neighbours. He was winding back democracy, whereas the clear trend in the rest of western Europe was towards greater democracy. The German Empire was a backwards force. It was a return to old fashioned conquest, and victory would have enabled that to be taken much further.

Bismarck used the Franco-Prussian war to help expand Prussia into an undemocratic empire. in doing so he wiped out a lot of the gains towards democracy that had already been made as a result of the French, and that would have been made. It is a deliberate act of self delusion to pretend the empire would have acted differently to every other empire in history.


Quote:

There is nothing to suggest that Bismark's intricate and delicate system of alliances and deterrences was anything other than a strategy to consolidate Germany's status as the central power, and protect itself against allied attack.

Except of course the clear pattern of such empires throughout history. Emperors consolidate their internal power so they can focus on projecting it outwards, not because they have some ideological adherence to the status quo.


Quote:

If Hitler had kept his nose out of everyone else’s business, Germany would almost certainly have become the dominant European -and world - power much earlier.

It would have gone the same way as Russia.


Quote:

This is why it matters little whether Mother pours the tea, or a Suharto or a Marcos or a Mubarak. The reason these military rulers succeeded is they were able to keep their populations down. The reason they succeeded is they actively surpressed Freeedom, and were rewarded by the global military and business community for doing so.

Crap. The world powers would have traded with these countries regardless. They kept their own populations down because that is what oppressive regimes do for their own benefit, not because some foreigner is rewarding them.


Quote:

Even communism did not hold Germany down for long.

It's the other way round. Like term, it would have stifled the economy, just like in Russia.


Quote:

Maybe its defeat in war did it some good. Maybe it did us all some good.

Of course it did.


Quote:

In the short term, it definitely did the US some good, but in the long run, with competing German exports and the common market of the EU, it may not be so good for the US at all.

Everyone benefits through trade liberalisation. The US may not always lead, but if the world economy grows that much, it will still be better off. This is why Chinese liberalisation is such a good thing for the global economy, despite the fact that they compete.


Quote:

Hitler had to be stopped because he was threatening the existing Anglo-French dominated world order. While the colonies were rapidly dissapearing, the rise of Hitler and the start of WWII was still very much a function of Germany reacting to being denied a "fair" share of the big global exploitation pie.

Why does it not surprise me that even the most liberal Muslim tries to downplay Hitler. Hitler had to be stopped because he wanted to achieve what Muhammed had - a thousand year Reich - and he was just as devious as MUhammed in achieving it.


Quote:

It was the first time in history in which the victor imposed reparations on the vanquished for the cost of the war.

Crap. Muhammed did this all the time. In one case, he confiscated all the land and property, but allowed the vanquished to work the land provided they pay a 50% tax on everything produced. Other times he simply slaughtered the men and took the women as sex slaves. What made this almost unique was that the 'punishment' did not involve a long term occupation.


Quote:

And remembering of course that it was this same Prussian elite that formed the backbone of the nationalistic, militaristic culture that drove German unity, and her subsequent imperial ambitions in the late 19th century.

You mean the same Prussian elite who had no imperialist ambitions in WWI?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:29pm:

It is a deliberate act of self delusion to pretend the empire would have acted differently to every other empire in history.

Every other empire? Including the British? French? Dutch? Portugese?


freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 7:29pm:

You mean the same Prussian elite who had no imperialist ambitions in WWI?

LOL of course they had imperialist ambitions.

Confused much FD?

So they had imperialist ambitions, but posed no threat to democracy in Europe if they had won WWI?

Is this because they were so devoted to focusing on central Europe that they would have confined their imperialism to Africa?

Or is it because they were "arguably" more democratic that Britain?

You are right, this is confusing.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2014 at 10:00pm:

So they had imperialist ambitions, but posed no threat to democracy in Europe if they had won WWI?

Same way in which Britain had the largest empire the world had ever seen, but didn't threaten the territorial or political sovereignty of its 'civilized' neighbours.

Germany wanted to consolidate its hegemony over central Europe and to compete with Britain and France over access to the international markets. There is no evidence they had ambitions to dismantle French and British democracy.

Sorry if this is confusing for you.

Quote:

Same way in which Britain had the largest empire the world had ever seen, but didn't threaten the territorial or political sovereignty of its 'civilized' neighbours.

We are talking about democracy here Gandalf. Britain exported it to a lot of the world. France exported it to it's neighbours. That's how they became civilised. The German Empire on the other hand started winding back democracy.

You are the one who claimed the German Empire had no imperial ambitions because it was only interested in central Europe. Even Britain and France, who had no interest in occupying Germany, still insisted on establishing a new form of government there after both world wars. It is delusional to insist that a victorious German Empire would not have acted like an empire and not threatened the new democracies of western Europe. You tried to use the Franco Prussian war as evidence of this, yet it is evidence of the exact opposite. Bismarck used it for the purpose of imperial expansion within Europe and to wind back democracy.


Quote:

There is no evidence they had ambitions to dismantle French and British democracy.

So the fact that they had used the previous war to expand their empire and wind back democracy is not evidence they would have done the same thing after WWI? How about common sense? Can you cite any other historical examples of expansionist empires defeating their immediate neighbours in a war and not interfering with their governance?

Your whole argument is based on the idiotic notion that because the German Empire lost WWI and did not get to act on any of it's ambitions, it musn't have had any ambitions - it must have somehow been different from every other empire in history.

Have you changed your mind yet about the German Empire being more democratic than Britain?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 9:23am:

You tried to use the Franco Prussian war as evidence of this, yet it is evidence of the exact opposite. Bismarck used it for the purpose of imperial expansion within Europe and to wind back democracy.

Thats ridiculous. Bismark officialised what was already a reality in practice - the federation of a united collection of states with shared cultural and linguistic values. They had been a virtual state for hundreds of years under the Holy Roman Empire. The reality was that Bismark worked to unite what was already a united cultural and linguistic entity, and respected the sovereignty of the non-German states such as Denmark and France in the process.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 9:23am:

Your whole argument is based on the idiotic notion that because the German Empire lost WWI and did not get to act on any of it's ambitions, it musn't have had any ambitions

The only idiotic notion is your complete misunderstanding of German ambitions vis-a-vis avoiding encirclement and getting an equitable share in the international markets. By attempting to block this access, Britain and France were not fighting to protect democracy.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 9:23am:

it must have somehow been different from every other empire in history.

You already know that the British and French (and Dutch and Portugese, Spanish etc) colonial empires were "different from every other empire in history" - you spend about 30 pages pointing that out in the coffee thread - sheeesh  :P.

The western powers had set the standard - Germany merely wanted to join in, and were actively blocked by the existing economic hegemons.

Quote:

Thats ridiculous. Bismark officialised what was already a reality in practice - the federation of a united collection of states with shared cultural and linguistic values.

From his own memoirs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War

The conflict emerged from tensions regarding German unification. In his memoirs written long after the war, Prussian Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck wrote: "I always considered that a war with France would naturally follow a war against Austria...I was convinced that the gulf which was created over time between the north and the south of Germany could not be better overcome than by a national war against the neighboring people who were aggressive against us. I did not doubt that it was necessary to make a French-German war before the general reorganization of Germany could be realized."


Quote:

They had been a virtual state for hundreds of years under the Holy Roman Empire.

Do you realise that over a millenia had passed since then? What is with all this absurd apologetics?


Quote:

The reality was that Bismark worked to unite what was already a united cultural and linguistic entity, and respected the sovereignty of the non-German states such as Denmark and France in the process.

So he was imagining the gulf between the north and south? And the war he used with France to build his empire was respectful of French sovereignty?


Quote:

The only idiotic notion is your complete misunderstanding of German ambitions vis-a-vis avoiding encirclement and getting an equitable share in the international markets.

Yet you openly admit that this "equitable share" nonsense is a euphemism for their imperial ambitions.


Quote:

You already know that the British and French (and Dutch and Portugese, Spanish etc) colonial empires were "different from every other empire in history"

They exported their values, just like the German Empire would have. The French exported social institutions of liberty and democracy to much of western Europe. That why the various German states were booming with industrialisation. The British exported similar institutions to many of their colonies. Muhammed exported Islam. The German Empire would have done the same. It would have exported a democratic facade masking a return to traditional imperialism. Maybe it would have abandoned the facade completely. They certainly did not value it. What made the British empire different was the social transition within Britain that it exported, and continued to export even as the empire faded. This is not the same as saying it was not an empire. You are the only one pushing that nonsense.


Quote:

The western powers had set the standard - Germany merely wanted to join in

We are talking about democracy. Western powers had set that standard. The German Empire did not want to join in on that. They wanted the money, and were willing to sacrifice everything else to get it, including democracy. No wonder the Muslims try to defend them and pretend a German victory would have had no implications for democracy.

Is there are reason you are now trying to steer this debate away from democracy? Have you decided that those soldiers you were so keen to insult on ANZAC day maybe weren't so deluded after all?

We know the answer to that, FD. The Moslem is trying to pretend demokracy is a figment of our imagination, can you believe it?

Bad form.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

Do you realise that over a millenia had passed since then? What is with all this absurd apologetics?

The Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806 ffs

Seriously why do I bother?  ::)

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

From his own memoirs:

So freaking what?? France was a threat who had been aggressive towards Prussia and many other German states for the best part of a century. They had occupied German territory and at that stage still possessed annexed German territory. You even quote Bismark as saying France was the aggressor. The greatest driver for unification was the desire of the smaller German states who were most vulnerable to French aggression to secure protection from Prussia. And this was secured best by unifying with them.

But the proof in the pudding was the fact that in the end, despite a crushing victory over France, Germany proved they had no intention of swallowing up France into some "old style" empire, and certainly made no move against the developing democracy in France.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

the war he used with France to build his empire was respectful of French sovereignty?

Absolutely yes it was. France declared war on Germany and made the first incursion. Germany defeated the French military in the field, then marched on Paris to secure victory in the war. Germany then withdrew once terms had been agreed upon (including a return of French occupied German territory), and French sovereignty was left intact.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

Yet you openly admit that this "equitable share" nonsense is a euphemism for their imperial ambitions.

Absolutely. Whats your point? Why is it so hard for you to grasp this very simple point of mine that Germany wanted an empire in the tinted people's lands - just like the British and French had? Thats where the money and prosperity lay. They obviously weren't going to achieve this if they wasted all their resources establishing and maintaining an impossible occupation of France and Britain and blocking their development of democracy.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 11:40am:

They exported their values, just like the German Empire would have.

They exported their rifles and cannons and iron war ships to the tinted people's lands so they could exploit their rich resources and control the international markets. But I'm sure the red Indians and the Australian Aborigines greatly appreciated the freedom and liberal values they were getting as they were being annihilated.

Have you changed your mind yet about the German Empire being more democratic than Britain?

Is there a reason you are now trying to steer this debate away from democracy? Have you decided that those soldiers you were so keen to insult on ANZAC day maybe weren't so deluded after all?


Quote:

The greatest driver for unification was the desire of the smaller German states who were most vulnerable to French aggression to secure protection from Prussia.

Spoken like Bismarck: I did not doubt that it was necessary to make a French-German war before the general reorganization of Germany could be realized."


Quote:

But the proof in the pudding was the fact that in the end, despite a crushing victory over France, Germany proved they had no intention of swallowing up France into some "old style" empire, and certainly made no move against the developing democracy in France.

The empire expanded in the Franco-Prussian war, and eroded democracy. Of course he did not swallow up France. He was busy enough expanding his empire to the east.


Quote:

Absolutely. Whats your point?

That a victory of the German Empire in WWI would have further eroded democracy. Instead, the allies won, and democracy expanded.


Quote:

Why is it so hard for you to grasp this very simple point of mine that Germany wanted an empire in the tinted people's lands - just like the British and French had?

Because you try to equate this with the German Empire posing no threat to French and British democracy. You insist that the German Empire was only interested in central Europe at the same time as claiming it really wanted a new wave of African imperialism. Your story doesn't add up.


Quote:

Thats where the money and prosperity lay.

Crap. The money and prosperity was in Europe. Africa was easier to colonise, but that isn't such a big factor if you have already achieved a military victory over France and Britain.


Quote:

They obviously weren't going to achieve this if they wasted all their resources establishing and maintaining an impossible occupation of France and Britain and blocking their development of democracy.

Like I keep pointing out, they did not even need to occupy France and Britain. We are talking about democracy remember?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Have you changed your mind yet about the German Empire being more democratic than Britain?

No, and its completely irrelevant. Neither side had a democracy, so there was no democracy to protect. Got it yet??


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Have you decided that those soldiers you were so keen to insult on ANZAC day maybe weren't so deluded after all?

I'm insulting them by pointing out the bleeding obvious - that their invasion of a sovereign nation on the other side of the world that had nothing to do with Australia was not protecting our democracy and freedom. Tell you what FD, cite me a single original ANZAC who claimed the Gallipoli invasion was all about democracy and freedom and then we can talk about who is calling who deluded. The only accounts I have read by actual ANZACs are expressions of complete disdain for their British commanders and their imperialistic objectives.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

That a victory of the German Empire in WWI would have further eroded democracy. Instead, the allies won, and democracy expanded.

Evidently your only argument here is that a German victory would have further eroded democracy in Germany. But we are talking about why the Australians (and by extension the British and French) fought. To protect Germany from becoming less democractic? Please don't tell me you think the Allies entered the war to protect Germany from further despotism. Besides, it dismantles the myth that they were fighting to protect their own freedom and democracy that you were happily peddling before.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

You insist that the German Empire was only interested in central Europe at the same time as claiming it really wanted a new wave of African imperialism. Your story doesn't add up.

Yes, apparently this perfectly logical position is still a little too hard for you to comprehend. I guess because you've run out of strawmen to construct over it.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Crap. The money and prosperity was in Europe. Africa was easier to colonise, but that isn't such a big factor if you have already achieved a military victory over France and Britain.

Of course - and occupying France and Britain and dismantling their government - as opposed to respecting their sovereignty and establishing trade relations with them - will give you sooooooo much prosperity eh?


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Like I keep pointing out, they did not even need to occupy France and Britain. We are talking about democracy remember?

Yeah they did if they wanted to threaten the sovereignty of their states and the development of their democracy. Kind of like how victory over France in the Franco-Prussian war didn't impede the development of democracy there.

Quote:

No, and its completely irrelevant. Neither side had a democracy, so there was no democracy to protect. Got it yet??

You seemed to think it was relevant before. Was France a democracy? How about the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa etc?


Quote:

I'm insulting them by pointing out the bleeding obvious - that their invasion of a sovereign nation on the other side of the world that had nothing to do with Australia was not protecting our democracy and freedom. Tell you what FD, cite me a single original ANZAC who claimed the Gallipoli invasion was all about democracy and freedom and then we can talk about who is calling who deluded.

You made this claim originally. Now you want me to prove it?


Quote:

Evidently your only argument here is that a German victory would have further eroded democracy in Germany.

They would have destroyed democracy in France and Britain also, most likely through direct occupation. In WWII, the threat was more global and imminent, however the loss of major democracies so early in the history of democracy was bad new for every new democracy.


Quote:

Of course - and occupying France and Britain and dismantling their government - as opposed to respecting their sovereignty and establishing trade relations with them - will give you sooooooo much prosperity eh?

That was the model until recently in human history. Prussia did not develop trade relations with it's neighbours through the Franco-Prussian war. It swallowed them and built the German Empire.

South Africa?

Ah, you’ve been listening to Andrei again.

Carry on.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:24pm:

You seemed to think it was relevant before.

No I didn't. I was pointing out the absurdity that it was freedom and democracy on one side and big bad evil autocracy on the other. The reality, which I was pointing out, is that both sides had a little of both. But there were definitely no true democracies anywhere.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:24pm:

You made this claim originally. Now you want me to prove it?

I said *IF* there are any ANZACs who believed they were fighting for freedom and democracy then they are deluded. Its not a criticism, and most certainly not an insult  - deluding yourself that you are putting your life in danger for something noble is a perfectly reasonable and understandable reaction. And yet, it doesn't seem there were any ANZACs who took on that delusion. You obviously want to take on this delusion - because you clearly can't handle the truth of the west's imperialistic and aggressive values - but don't insult the intelligence of our ANZACs by airbrushing their well documented disdain and scepticism for what we were fighting for during WWI.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 1:46pm:

I said *IF* there are any ANZACs who believed they were fighting for freedom and democracy then they are deluded. Its not a criticism, and most certainly not an insult  - deluding yourself that you are putting your life in danger for something noble is a perfectly reasonable and understandable reaction. And yet, it doesn't seem there were any ANZACs who took on that delusion. You obviously want to take on this delusion - because you clearly can't handle the truth of the west's imperialistic and aggressive values - but don't insult the intelligence of our ANZACs by airbrushing their well documented disdain and scepticism for what we were fighting for during WWI.

Diggers thought they were exporting demokracy to Turkey? Now that’s a thought.

The ANZACs were fighting for the Empire. The term "democracy" back then was never used. Empire-builders preferred the term, "civilisation".

The ANZACs fought for British hegemony, and nothing more. They fought under a British flag for Mother.

Melanias purse wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Diggers thought they were exporting demokracy to Turkey? Now that’s a thought.

Either that or they thought invading the sovereign borders of someone on the other side of the world who posed no threat to Australia was somehow defending Australia's freedom and demokracy.

Not even the war memorial or any other ANZAC institutions mention anything about freedom and democracy when they talk about the Gallipoli campaign.

I have no problems with our boys following orders. My problem is with Winstoned Churchill and his ludicrous plan which killed so many of our young men and in some cases forced them to go to their deaths. As I understand it too they were forced to run over the trenches knowing full well they would be mowed down by machine gun fire. So to the military leaders that were party to that shame shame shame on you murderers. Gallipolli had nothing to do with us at all.

The ANZACS Kudo's to them for following orders and being great men with good intentions. The instigators can go rot in hell.

Melanias purse wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 3:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 1:46pm: I said *IF* there are any ANZACs who believed they were fighting for freedom and democracy then they are deluded. Its not a criticism, and most certainly not an insult  - deluding yourself that you are putting your life in danger for something noble is a perfectly reasonable and understandable reaction. And yet, it doesn't seem there were any ANZACs who took on that delusion. You obviously want to take on this delusion - because you clearly can't handle the truth of the west's imperialistic and aggressive values - but don't insult the intelligence of our ANZACs by airbrushing their well documented disdain and scepticism for what we were fighting for during WWI. Diggers thought they were exporting demokracy to Turkey? Now that’s a thought. The ANZACs were fighting for the Empire. The term "democracy" back then was never used. Empire-builders preferred the term, "civilisation". The ANZACs fought for British hegemony, and nothing more. They fought under a British flag for Mother.

They didn't want Turkey Karnal. They were trying to capture the Dardanelles so they could use the waterway to combine their army with the Russian Army and reinforce the eastern front against the Germans. Wrong again it seems. Plenty of muslims have fought for empires. The Ottomans are a prime example.

Mattywisk wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 3:56pm:

Gallipolli had nothing to do with us at all.

shh Matty - don't burst FD's bubble!


Sparky wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 4:12pm:

Plenty of muslims have fought for empires.

Indeed - about a million of them for the British Empire.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 4:35pm:

Mattywisk wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 3:56pm: Gallipolli had nothing to do with us at all. shh Matty - don't burst FD's bubble! Sparky wrote on May 3rd, 2014 at 4:12pm: Plenty of muslims have fought for empires. Indeed - about a million of them for the British Empire.

The Ottomans were a multi million man empire that invaded other people /religions lands for centuries. The Moors, Persians are another 2 examples.

Quote:

No I didn't. I was pointing out the absurdity that it was freedom and democracy on one side and big bad evil autocracy on the other.

It was. This claim was built on your deliberately deceptive line about the German Empire having universal male suffrage. I thought you had given that up for a reason.


Quote:

The reality, which I was pointing out, is that both sides had a little of both.

We had Russia on our side. They helped defend democracy too, ironically enough. We also had France, Britain, USA, Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries - including Britain - were more democratic. They were also all on a path towards liberalisation and greater democracy. The German empire was heading in the opposite direction. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were already there.


Quote:

But there were definitely no true democracies anywhere.

Is this your alternative argument to the German Empire being "arguably more democratic" than Britain?


Quote:

I said *IF* there are any ANZACs who believed they were fighting for freedom and democracy then they are deluded.

This is what I quoted in the opening post:


Quote:

Or I should clarify - many people may have died thinking they were protecting our freedom, but they were as deluded as you are. The reality is, every man and woman who has died fighting in Australia's wars died in the name of protecting either British or American economic hegemony.

Quote:

Its not a criticism, and most certainly not an insult

Calling someone deluded is not an insult?


Quote:

You obviously want to take on this delusion - because you clearly can't handle the truth of the west's imperialistic and aggressive values

The truth is that by fighting in both World Wars, our soldiers were defending the nascent democracies of the new world order. They were defending democracy. I never said it was black and white, or the only issue at stake was democracy. Yet the reality is that the new democracies of the world were on our side, and a loss by the allies in either world war would have meant a significant if not complete loss of democracy.

I suggest people read Liddell Hart's history of the First World war so that they may gain an insight into it. This is before they carry on.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Quote: No I didn't. I was pointing out the absurdity that it was freedom and democracy on one side and big bad evil autocracy on the other. It was. This claim was built on your deliberately deceptive line about the German Empire having universal male suffrage. I thought you had given that up for a reason. [quote]The reality, which I was pointing out, is that both sides had a little of both.

We had Russia on our side. They helped defend democracy too, ironically enough. We also had France, Britain, USA, Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. All of these countries - including Britain - were more democratic. They were also all on a path towards liberalisation and greater democracy. The German empire was heading in the opposite direction. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were already there.


Quote:

But there were definitely no true democracies anywhere.

Is this your alternative argument to the German Empire being "arguably more democratic" than Britain?


Quote:

I said *IF* there are any ANZACs who believed they were fighting for freedom and democracy then they are deluded.

This is what I quoted in the opening post:


Quote:

Or I should clarify - many people may have died thinking they were protecting our freedom, but they were as deluded as you are. The reality is, every man and woman who has died fighting in Australia's wars died in the name of protecting either British or American economic hegemony.

Quote:

Its not a criticism, and most certainly not an insult

Calling someone deluded is not an insult?


Quote:

You obviously want to take on this delusion - because you clearly can't handle the truth of the west's imperialistic and aggressive values

The truth is that by fighting in both World Wars, our soldiers were defending the nascent democracies of the new world order. They were defending democracy. I never said it was black and white, or the only issue at stake was democracy.[/quote]

That’s good, because it wasn’t an issue at stake for anyone other than Amerika. The only one who pretended it was, was Woodrow Wilson, who in 1917 used the idea of demokracy to get Congress to approve US entry into the war: "to make the world safe for democracy".

Cynical? Idealistic? Cunning?

All.

Amerika is good that way. It has the best, and worst, aspects of humanity. In Amerika, tyranny and demokracy are two sides of the same coin.

Australians would never sprout such tosh as Woodrow Wilson and his would-be heir, George W Bush. We all cringed when Bush wanted to export Freeedom.and demokracy to Iraq.

Well, most of us did. Some are under the unfathomable illusion that we actually did so.

Was he right though? Did they make the world safe for Democracy? Does this Mr Wilson even exist? Gandalf needs proof. He was only joking about people deluding themselves into thinking they were defending democracy. The truth is, they hadn't even noticed it existed back then. They would say things like, you can like our lives, but you will never take our economic hegemony!

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 6:31pm:

South Africa... more democratic.

Cue riotous laughter.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Calling someone deluded is not an insult?

No - but as I said, I don't believe any of the original ANZACs held this delusion. Whats insulting is to put words into the mouths of those ANZACs and airbrush out of history their very well documented cynicism and contempt for the obvious imperialistic nature of the war.

Have you found a single account by an ANZAC extolling the glorious democratic justifications for their invasion of Turkey yet?


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 6:31pm:

The truth is that by fighting in both World Wars, our soldiers were defending the nascent democracies of the new world order.

Well if it makes you sleep better at night...

Of course "defending nascent democracies of the new world order" evidently involved a significant ramping up of mass slaughter of resistors to occupation and independent nationalists in places like China and India. Or in Australia - this 'nascent' democracy just happened to coincide with the introduction of the racist WAP - and the inevitable discrimination and persecution of the existing non-whites, as well as a particularly insidious and cruel policy of cultural genocide against the Aborigines - the victims of which would come to be known as The Stolen Generation. 

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 8:05pm:

Was he right though? Did they make the world safe for Democracy? Does this Mr Wilson even exist? Gandalf needs proof. He was only joking about people deluding themselves into thinking they were defending democracy. The truth is, they hadn't even noticed it existed back then. They would say things like, you can like our lives, but you will never take our economic hegemony!

Wilson was a good guy, for all the good he did - could do. Did he make the world safe for demokracy? Oh, FD...

You seem to have forgotten the entire 20th century.

Quote:

Cue riotous laughter.

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

The Cape Qualified Franchise was the system of non-racial franchise that was adhered to in the Cape Colony, and in the Cape Province in the early years of the Union of South Africa. Qualifications for the right to vote at parliamentary elections were applied equally to all men, regardless of race.


Quote:

No - but as I said, I don't believe any of the original ANZACs held this delusion.

So only Mr Wilson and his soldiers did?


Quote:

Whats insulting is to put words into the mouths of those ANZACs

What words have I put in their mouths Gandalf? You don't seem to have understood a single thing I have said here.

Do you still think the German Empire was "arguably" more democratic than Britain?


Quote:

Wilson was a good guy, for all the good he did - could do. Did he make the world safe for demokracy? Oh, FD...

I think he did. Not all on his own of course. After all, we still have our democracy. The Americans still have theirs. Plenty of countries that were not democracies at the time are democracies now. That is a good outcome, given the two world wars we have had to fight against countries that were either hostile to democracy or outright dictatorships.

That’s right - the famous Cape Qualified Franchise, A nice idea which lasted for all of five minutes, and abandoned when they realised the Hottentots couldn’t read a roll.

How many bleck polititians were elected in the Cape Qualified Franchise, FD? We’ll have to run that one past Andrei.

He’s not too big a fan of demokraacy, but he loves Freidom.

Plenty of countries that were not demokracies at the time still aren’t. Look at Egypt. I thought for a second they might escape the generals, but no.

Nothing changes, and nothing stays the same.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:29pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Qualified_Franchise The Cape Qualified Franchise was the system of non-racial franchise that was adhered to in the Cape Colony, and in the Cape Province in the early years of the Union of South Africa. Qualifications for the right to vote at parliamentary elections were applied equally to all men, regardless of race.

You are joking right?

Read the rest of the article please.


Quote:

The successive restrictions of the preceding decades meant that by 1908, when the National Convention on Union was held, only "22,784 Native and Coloured persons out of a total of 152,221 electors" were entitled to vote in Cape elections, even though the franchise system was, at least in principle, still non-racial.

Quote:

The final version of the South Africa Act permitted the Cape Province to keep a restricted version of its traditional franchise, whereby qualifications limited the suffrage of all citizens according to education and wealth. This led to the Cape being the only province in South Africa where coloureds (mixed-race people) and Black Africans could vote. The act also permitted the Parliament of South Africa to prescribe all other voting qualifications.[17][18] However according to the Act, Parliament was given the power to change the Cape's voting requirements by a two-thirds vote. Overall the Act did little to protect black Africans, and ultimately enabled the later apartheid government to gradually whittle away and eventually abolish the Cape franchise.

What happened FD? Surely a noble freedom-loving whilte administration full of British liberal values didn't wind back democracy all by themselves? I blame the Kaiser - or better yet, islam.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:29pm:

Quote: No - but as I said, I don't believe any of the original ANZACs held this delusion. So only Mr Wilson and his soldiers did?

Wilson was certainly deluded.


freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:29pm:

What words have I put in their mouths Gandalf? You don't seem to have understood a single thing I have said here.

Ok then, so you agree with me then that the ANZACs themselves didn't believe they were fighting for freedom and democracy then? What are you saying then FD - are *YOU* calling them deluded?  ;D

OK, I'll give you South Africa. It was less democratic than the German Empire, though obviously still more democratic than the other two central powers. That still leaves 7 new and functioning democracies on one side of the war (that I can easily think of), all moving in the opposite direction to the German Empire.


Quote:

Plenty of countries that were not demokracies at the time still aren’t.

Does this mean our participation in the world wars did not defend democracy? This sounds like your goal post shifting game again Karnal. You have not just moved them, you have completely hidden them. What counts as success now? Making the entire world democratic overnight?


Quote:

Wilson was certainly deluded.

About what in particular? About 'making the world safe for democracy'?


Quote:

Ok then, so you agree with me then that the ANZACs themselves didn't believe they were fighting for freedom and democracy then?

My point was that I never claimed that they said this. They probably did - said it and believed it, but I have not put any words in their mouths. I doubt Mr Wilson was the only one who saw it that way. This is not a denial of everything else that was going on at the time. But the fact is, all the forces of democracy were on one side of this war, and if they had lost it would have been disastrous for democracy. You take democracy for granted, and it may seem fairly robust to you today, but your own points about Iraq and Afghanistan should make you realise how fragile it is. If, in the next few decades, either of these countries lose a war against an undemocratic neighbour, what do you think that would mean for their democracy, assuming there is no big brother to bail them out? That is the situation the world's democracies found themselves in in WWI.


Quote:

What are you saying then FD - are *YOU* calling them deluded?

I am saying that they fought on the side of democracy, and they protected democracy. To make this point as clear as possible, I even extended this to Russia. I doubt any Russian soldiers saw it that way, but their actions helped to defend democracy and freedom, and may one day lead to Russia itself becoming democratic and free (via a length chain of causality, of course).

Overnight?

But, FD, Mother held.most of the colonies in.the 19th century. The US got influence over them after wwIi. We’re talking well over a century.

The US does not want demokracies. Why do you think it left Saddam in power after the Gulf War? We went into that one for Freeedom, no?

The colonies have only ever obtained demokracy when they fought for it - themselves.

Quote:

The US does not want demokracies.

Was South korea and accident? What about West Germany? What about Iraq and Afghanistan?


Quote:

Why do you think it left Saddam in power after the Gulf War?

Because the country was full of Muslims. Because they had been through a quagmire in Vietnam. You have now seen how hard it is to establish democracy in these countries. I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to bother. I don't think we should have in Iraq.


Quote:

The colonies have only ever obtained demokracy when they fought for it - themselves.

How much fighting did we have to do?

FD, out of ALL the countries in the world, why do you only want to talk about the Cape Qualified Franchise and South Korea?

West Germany already had a Reichstag. Iraq and Afghanistan are an hallucination.

Karzai’s psychosis notwithstanding.

I’d like you to make a list. Go on, you show us how demokratic we’ve made the world.

I can think of one: East Timor.

Quote:

FD, out of ALL the countries in the world, why do you only want to talk about the Cape Qualified Franchise and South Korea?

I have introduced Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, the USA, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and Australia. In the other thread I also introduced Malaysia I think, though you may have beaten me to it, and to Indonesia.


Quote:

West Germany already had a Reichstag.

We gifted democracy to Germany three times. First the French revolution introduced it. Bismarck wound it back. After WWI democracy was established again. Hitler burned the Reichstag. After getting rid of Hitler, we established democracy yet again. This time it stuck.


Quote:

Iraq and Afghanistan are an hallucination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_presidential_election,_2014

Presidential elections were held in Afghanistan on 5 April 2014.

There have been reports of polling sites running out of ballot papers due to a high turnout.

The election will be the first time in Afghanistan's history that power will be democratically transferred.

The 2014 presidential elections is the first year Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have taken the lead for such an event.


Quote:

I’d like you to make a list. Go on, you show us how demokratic we’ve made the world.

See my list above. I think that defending our own freedom and democracy is itself a success.


Quote:

I can think of one: East Timor.

Thanks. I had forgotten about them. Why does East Timor count but not Iraq and Afghanistan? Does it only count if it costs nothing?

Here is a good list:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Countries_and_regions

It has 25 countries listed as "full democracies", and seems to have fairly strict criteria.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg/600px-Democracy_Index_2012_green_and_red.svg.png

The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy index map for 2012, with greener colours representing more democratic countries.
Full democracies:
  9.00-10.00
  8.00-8.99
Flawed democracies:
  7.00-7.99
  6.00-6.99
Hybrid regimes:
  5.00-5.99
  4.00-4.99
Authoritarian regimes:
  3.00-3.99
  2.00-2.99
  0.00-1.99
Insufficient information, no rating:
 

Nice map. Iraq’s in the middle of a civil war, and Afghanistan’s destined for the Taliban.

Oh, we tried. Maybe China will march in and they’ll get it right a second time. Who knows? A couple of million deaths is nothing in the great march to Freeedom.

We must stay positive, FD.

We can be as negative as we like about Islam though.

They killed 3000 - the measure of terrorism, but not, alas, Freeeedom.

Quote:

and Afghanistan’s destined for the Taliban

They look spent to me. The US is pulling out, and they are still impotent to get in the way of elections. They did their best, and sacrificed another 80 of their fighters on election day, but it came to naught.

Keep going through the list, FD. How about Iran?

I know one - Indonesia:

After 30 years of suppression the US finally abandoned their support of the brutal autocrat Suharto.

What a marvelous gift of freedom and democracy eh  :P

Or maybe we can talk about the US's support for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, who continued to destabilise the democratic government right up until 1994.  I guess Cambodia should be kissing the US's feet after the US finally abandoned these brutal bastards.

Quote:

Keep going through the list, FD. How about Iran?

Now I have no idea what you are asking me. Again. Follow the link if you want to see how it is rated. Or are you just playing hide the goalposts again?


Quote:

I know one - Indonesia:

Who do you think is responsible for Indonesia's democracy?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 8:29am:

I know one - Indonesia: After 30 years of suppression the US finally abandoned their support of the brutal autocrat Suharto. What a marvelous gift of freedom and democracy eh  :P

Yes, but to be fair to Uncle, they only supported Suharto with aid, military training, arms sales, World Bank loans for family deals, protection on the UN Security Council...

And business, plenty of business.

Actually, the US never abandoned their support of Suharto. It was the IMF who finally threw down the gauntlet, and only after the books showed Suharto was making US dollars disappear by the half-billion. 

It was the Indonesians who abandoned their support of Suharto, but they hardly count. We're talking about Freeedom here, remember.

When the Asian Financial Crisis hit and the IMF made its rescue package conditional on financial and demokratic reform, the US State Department finally woke up to smell the kopi.

But by then it was too late. The Asian Financial Crisis was threatening to bring down Uncle. What to do?

The Asian Financial Crisis was a direct result of the nepotism and croney capitalism that drove South East Asia through the post-war years. Freeedom? Demokracy? Wealth creation?

Not for Indonesia, and not for the rest of Asia. The Asian Financial Crisis is a clear example of how Amerikan-exported Freeedom in one country can spread through an entire region.

FD blames Islam. Typical.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

Who do you think is responsible for Indonesia's democracy?

I'll ask you that question, FD. Who do you think?


freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

Quote: Keep going through the list, FD. How about Iran? Now I have no idea what you are asking me.

Sorry, FD, I should have been more clear. Can you say how Amerika's support of Freeedom in Iran followed Wilson's plan of making the world safe for demokracy?

Let's see. In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh became Prime Minister. He was popularly elected, most demokratic, and sought constitutional changes to remove the absolute authority of the Shah. He then decided to nationalize the Iranian oil industry - with the overwhealming support of his electorate.

Whoops! He forgot to ask Uncle. In 1953, the CIA backed a coup, installed a general as PM and strengthened the rule of the Shah, who reigned as an absolute monarch until he was thrown out in the 1979 Revolution. The Shah's arms were paid for by Uncle, his lifestyle was paid for by BP, and his secret police force, the SAVAK, was trained by the CIA.

Strange - they somehow learned all these amazing torture techniques and the Shah's opponents seemed to mysteriously disappear. Odd.

I can see why you'd find the question a bit hard to answer, FD. Demokracy's teething pangs, eh?

Thank heavens the Islamic Republic of Iran is now a fully functioning demokracy.

Should we thank Uncle or blame Islam?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 12:31pm:

Who do you think is responsible for Indonesia's democracy?

Please FD, give us all a jolly laugh and conjure up some fairy tale about how the US was responsible.

Looks like is was the UN, in the first instance.

Iranian democracy was born in 1906 in the gardens of the British Embassy. It was modeled on the Belgian constitution.

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

In the summer of 1906 approximately 12,000 men camped out in the gardens of the British Embassy. Many gave speeches, many more listened, in what has been called a `vast open-air school of political science` studying constitutionalism.[3] It is here that the demand for a majles (parliament; also means gathering in Persian; pronounced "Madj-less") was born, the goal of which was to limit the power of the Shah. In August 1906, Mozaffar ad-Din Shah agreed to allow a parliament, and in the fall, the first elections were held. In all, 156 members were elected, with an overwhelming majority coming from Tehran and the merchant class.

October 1906 marked the first meeting of the majles, who immediately gave themselves the right to make a constitution, thereby becoming a Constitutional Assembly. The Shah was getting old and sick, and attending the inauguration of the parliament was one of his last acts as king.[2] Mozaffar ad-Din Shah's son Muhammed Ali, however, was not privy to constitutionalism. Therefore they had to work fast, and by December 31, 1906 the Shah signed the constitution, modeled primarily from the Belgian Constitution. The Shah was from there on "under the rule of law, and the crown became a divine gift given to the Shah by the people." Mozaffar ad-Din Shah died five days later.

The UN, eh?

That’s a relief. I was worried you were going to say the Ayotollah there for a second.

Which part of the UN was in Iran in 1906, FD? And why did they ignore 12,000 people having a peaceful sit-in for demokracy?

Oh, I know - they were Muslims. The UN wanted to make them wait for another couple of centuries. That’ll teach them.

You go to the back of the queue, Muselman. You can wait until Mother and Uncle are good and ready for Freeedom and demokracy.

We’ll have a bit of fun with them first, eh FD?

Quote:

Which part of the UN was in Iran in 1906, FD?

That was in answer to the question about Indonesia, Karnal.

The democracy index I linked to:

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

lists 79 countries that I would consider success stories. As far as I can tell, every single one of these owe their democracy to the historically very recent rise of democracy in western Europe - and the efforts of western countries (and the soldiers Gandalf likes to insult on ANZAC day) to make the world 'safe for democracy'. It lists a further 37 hybrid regimes that I would class as "undecided". I expect most of them to eventually transition to democracy, and I expect they will receive help from other established democracies along the way - for example along the lines of the interference you attributed to the IMF in bringing Indonesia back from the brink. It lists 51 failures. Iran is the only one I can see that you can fairly blame on western interference, and only because the west introduced democracy to the country just over a century ago.

Prior to this, there have only been sporadic and isolated experiments with organised democracy throughout human history. What that map shows you is a genuine global revolution, a new world order taking place. There have been dire threats to this new world order, in the form of both world wars, and to a lesser extent the spread of communism. Our soldiers who fought in those world wars can genuinely claim that they helped to defend democracy. The example of Iran, and of past historical experiments with democracy that failed, should inform you of the fragility of this new world order and the reality of the poor prognosis it would have had if we had lost either world war.

This is something we can and should feel proud of. It is not something we should decry as a delusion on the part of our soldiers. It is not something we should pretend to ignore while trying to characterise our influence on the world by the counter-examples you can think of. To do so undermines the march of democracy by making it easier for counter-democratic forces to shape public perception of democracy and undermine our confidence in the cultural imperialism that should take place. This is not to say we should ignore the failures and horror stories. They should be a guide to how we ought to do it right, but not a source of endless mis-emphasised self flagellation. There will be many more threats to democracy, and many more opportunities to spread democracy, and we should approach these with a robust sense of purpose.

That's nice, FD. I like the part about us helping them to transition to demokracy. You know, like Iran, like Indonesia, like Egypt. And who knows? Maybe even Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think the old boy summed up your point well, no?


Soren wrote on Apr 30^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

Give the bastards the chance to act civilised (our influence) but they stick with their Suhartos, Sukarnos, Nehrus, Ghandis, Marcoses and Mugabes and assorted other tribal, backward, primitive bastards. And of course it IS the white man's burden when they do so. If you were to compel them to act right, they would denounce you as white colonialist beasts who takes away their precious innate tribal blood lust and hatred of each other (the stuff that has given their existence its miserable meaning for millennia). If you do NOT compel them, they will denounce you as white colonial corrupters and endorsers of their innate tribal blood lust and hatred of each other. White man's burden = there is no cure for the resentment backward peoples because they realise, without words, that their only option is the white man's way. This means abandoning their very culture and who wants to do that? But there is no room for people with bones through their noses or sclerotic 7th century ideas in the heads, is there? The world, like the caravan, has moved on.

Indonesia is a democracy today because of western influence. Egypt is not a lost cause either.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 12:30pm:

Indonesia is a democracy today because of western influence. Egypt is not a lost cause either.

Indonesia is a demokracy today because Indonesians protested against Suharto on mass during the Asian Financial Crisis. Ultimately, Indonesians are responsible for their demokracy, but the shift was not without Western influence.

It was the IMF who put the final arrow in the heart of Suharto's presidency. They made their rescue package conditional on free and fair elections. And believe me, they were hanging on the results of those elections. Golkar's presidential nomination of the technocrat B.J Habibie was a favour to both the Asian financiers and the Western financial institutions. His presidency was about getting Indonesia's house in order - a house that saw the rupiah's value halved within weeks, the price of imports doubled, and the interest on Indonesian debt spiraling out of control. Many Indonesians lost their shirts in that crisis, and many didn't have a shirt to lose in the first place.

The election of Indonesia's first demokratically-erected president in 1998 marked the end of the West's 30 year support of one of the richest dictators in the world. Suharto and his family had been found to have frittered away 537 million of IMF and World Bank loans. His presidency threatened  investment in Indonesia and the loans of Asian and Western banks. Debt was mounting daily, and the entire financial system was at risk. Suharto had to go.

The West were fine when Suharto spent Indonesia's money. It was a different matter when he spent theirs. Ultimately, of course, no one in the West did anything to bring demokracy to Indonesia, they simply made IMF loans conditional on Suharto's departure. After all, lending Indonesia money and leaving Suharto in power would have been throwing good money after bad. Suharto had gone from providing security to Western investment to being a huge sovereign risk.

How does the case of Indonesia factor into your demokracy and wealth creation idea, FD?

I'm interested.

I think he'll say that the democracy Indonesia has today originated from 19th and early 20th European institutions that were installed by the Dutch or UN or whatever.

But to break this deadlock, the question you need to ask FD is why the west played an active role in helping Suharto systematically move in the opposite direction to democracy - rather than help Indonesia utilize those great European institutions that existed in the country, to transition to democracy.

And I think the response we'll get to that will be along the lines of the thread he started in Thinking Globally - that dictatorship in strategic places like Indonesia was a necessary evil to counter the march of communism. But if thats the case, FD is only  making the case that the US supported and promoted anti-democracy - not democracy. Not to mention it totally destroys his favourite meme that freedom and democracy is the best antidote to the threat of communism.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 1:22pm:

But if thats the case, FD is only  making the case that the US supported and promoted anti-democracy - not democracy. Not to mention it totally destroys his favourite meme that freedom and democracy is the best antidote to the threat of communism.

Ah.

Quote:

Ultimately, Indonesians are responsible for their demokracy

Unlike the Iranians?


Quote:

The election of Indonesia's first demokratically-erected president in 1998

I think it was democratic before that.

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

Sukarno moved Indonesia from democracy towards authoritarianism

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

After a chaotic period of parliamentary democracy, Sukarno established an autocratic system called "Guided Democracy" in 1957


Quote:

the question you need to ask FD

You are free to ask yourself Gandalf.

Ultimately, Indonesia is a success story. It has democracy today, and you would struggle to decouple that in a meaningful way from the march of democracy pushed by western forces.

Most countries in the world today are either democratic or hybrid, which I presume means they have some aspects of democracy. If you go back just a few centuries, no country would satisfy those criteria, and most of them probably occurred within the last century. It takes a peculiar dedication to willful self delusion to try to paint that as the west being opposed to or indifferent to democracy. If indeed, that is what you are doing, as neither of you have been willing to put forward any kind of counter-argument for the last few pages. Expecting historical trends to be purely monotonic, or asking people to explain away any deviations you can find, or trying to read everything into the deviations, is a fool's game.

Others - here, Jews - have no problem honouring their soldiers:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBgh8xLiS-c

Yes, FD, unlike the Iranians. They don’t have demokracy, no matter how hard you try to massage their erections.

Iranians have been protesting for democracy, as you’ve shown, since 1906. Hundreds of thousands protested in 2010, in what was the biggest popular protest for political reform since Tiananmen Square.

This unrest, of course, was the prelude to the Arab Spring. Interestingly, the Iranian revolution in 1979 was the US’s fear/pretext for the Arab Spring, which makes some sense when you look at the anti-Western imperialist sentiments that drove the overthrow of the Shah, and subsequently, Mubarak, Ghaddafi et al.

But these popular regime changes did not become Islamic revolutions, even with Morsi’s rise to power in Egypt, and even in the home of faux-Islamic Maoism, Libya. The proof here is in the pudding. The Arab Spring did not see a popular move towards Islamicist theocracy, and nor was this imposed in any of the Arab countries, including Egypt under Morsi.

The irony of the Islamic revolution in Iran, I think, is that it happened to one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and democratic populations I can think of. Indonesians, by comparison, are not nearly as individualistic and bolshie as Iranians.

The idea that people get the leaders they deserve ignores all of recorded history. Iran is a perfect example of a citizenry who somehow manage to get the worst of all possible options through no fault of the majority of Iranians.

Iran has the sort of political system Y and the old boy would dream up in their most fervent fantasies.

Melanias purse wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

The irony of the Islamic revolution in Iran, I think, is that it happened to one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and democratic populations I can think of.

And there is a lesson on Islam for all of us.

As with socialism (predicted by its fathers to occur in the most advanced industrial societies like England, it actually occurred in the most backward European society, Russia), Islamism, the creed of the downtrodden and colonised (Islam is of course the biggest coloniser in history but whatcha gonna do about propaganda?) will take root in the most advanced societies because they are the ones ho can't bring themselves to have life-saving cultural surgery - the strength of their supposed freedom of speech.

SO while Egypt revolts against Islamists, in England and the West generally, they march through the institutions like their Marxist fore-runners did because everyone is too afraid or timid and brow-beaten to call Islamists supremacists by their name and to call a halt to the culturally corrosive influence of a wholly alien, wholly detrimental creed that is anathema to everything that defines the West.

It’s a lesson in geopolitics. Iran has more oil than Saudi Arabia, but sanctions mean its people die from the most simple health problems, due to the lack of medicine.

Iran should, or could, be one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Quote:

Most countries in the world today are either democratic or hybrid, which I presume means they have some aspects of democracy. If you go back just a few centuries, no country would satisfy those criteria, and most of them probably occurred within the last century. It takes a peculiar dedication to willful self delusion to try to paint that as the west being opposed to or indifferent to democracy..

If you go back a few centuries, the dominant political model was the Divine Right of Kings. It takes the most monstrous vanity to ignore the tyrannies imposed on the developed world by the West in the last half century alone. Even a Punch-fancier like the old boy acknowledges this and shamelessly promotes it as the White Man’s Burden.

We would not be having this debate if we weren’t at a particular stage in our political-economic development. Reagan, Thatcher and Hawke/Keating ushered in a new era that changed the old Cold War schema for good. Globalization and neoliberalism became the inescapable global paradigm. Financial movement and migration were central to this shift, and it is these two phenomena that the old boy set are reacting against today, from Islamists to first world reactionaries.

Suharto’s Indonesia is crucial to this shift, along with Pinochet’s Chile, These places were the crucible of Milton Friedman’s economic experiments in neoliberalism. This is no fiction - the Chicago School travelled and set up shop in both countries. Suharto and Pinochet had senior Chicago School advisors, and uncontested dictators were crucial in implimenting the initial experiments in economic shock therapy. Both countries developed under the entirely new model of neoclassical economics in the 1970s. This model was then ushered in by the West in the 1980s, eventually taking over the entire global financial system. It was a new economic model that totally changed the way governments and the global order worked.

The system responded in a series of important economic crises. Wall Street crashed in 1987, in what became known as Black Monday. The Asian Financial Crisis hit ten years later. These causes of these shocks were complicated, but they were the inevitable result of neoliberal economic policies. The Asian crisis finally brought down one of the principal players in this story: Suharto.

During the 1990s, populations around the world responded to neoliberalism and globalization, in what some have described as "culture wars". Australia saw the rise of Pauline Hanson. Similar sentiments arose in other places, interpreted through the prisms of their own culture. As a reaction, the new global order saw the rise of Islamicism, neoconservatism, fundamentalism. Media, and media ownership, responded and monopolised. Fox News came into being. As finance globalized, reactions intensified. We got a War on Terror.

We never exported Freeedom, the rules of the game merely changed, same as they always have, same as they continue to do. Blame Islam? But of course!

The rules might have changed, but the game is the same. Suharto had to go for the very reason he was needed in the first place. The game only tolerates Freeedom in very small doses, and for a tiny minority of players.

Karnal, can you string your rant together into some kind of cohesive theory? You appear to select a bunch of random and relatively insignificant historical events and draw a line through them and insist that your line is the driving force behind global geopolitics. It isn't. It is just another deluded hippy version of a narrow selection of historical events.


Quote:

It takes the most monstrous vanity to ignore the tyrannies imposed on the developed world by the West in the last half century alone.

Who is suggesting we ignore it?


Quote:

These causes of these shocks were complicated, but they were the inevitable result of neoliberal economic policies.

Crap. They were the same macroeconomic cycles that have been going on for centuries.


Quote:

During the 1990s, populations around the world responded to neoliberalism and globalization, in what some have described as "culture wars". Australia saw the rise of Pauline Hanson. Similar sentiments arose in other places, interpreted through the prisms of their own culture. As a reaction, the new global order saw the rise of Islamicism, neoconservatism, fundamentalism.

Great. Hansonism is to blame for terrorism. They don't hate our freedoms, they hate our redheads.


Quote:

The game only tolerates Freeedom in very small doses, and for a tiny minority of players.

And yet the majority of countries now have some degree of democracy because of it, and that number continues to grow. You are a hopeless cynic who simply rejects most of reality until he is left with enough negativity for his cultural self flagellation.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:

Karnal, can you string your rant together into some kind of cohesive theory?

FD, I do hope you're not trying to thwart my Freeedom of expression. It's one of our most valuable Freeedoms, remember.

Here's the theory:

Klein, N (2007. The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Knopf Canada.

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


Quote:

Who is suggesting we ignore it?

Oh, Fd...


freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:11pm:

The example of Iran, and of past historical experiments with democracy that failed, should inform you of the fragility of this new world order and the reality of the poor prognosis it would have had if we had lost either world war. This is something we can and should feel proud of. It is not something we should decry as a delusion on the part of our soldiers. It is not something we should pretend to ignore while trying to characterise our influence on the world by the counter-examples you can think of. To do so undermines the march of democracy by making it easier for counter-democratic forces to shape public perception of democracy and undermine our confidence in the cultural imperialism that should take place.

You're right in one sense though. The Iranian revolution and the rise of the Ayotollahs never would have happened without the US undermining the march of demokracy through their support of the Shah.

The untold part of the Iranian story is the CIA's repression of student/leftist groups during the revolution.

Hard to believe, but back in 1979, the US were far more supportive of Ayotollahs than Marxists. Who knows? Without the Iran Hostage Crisis, they might even have become friends.

Such "counter-examples" are hardly abberations. They are the rule. I would have thought exposing this rule is integral to the march of demokracy.

Cultural imperialism? That's the spirit. You'll be quoting Kipling with old boy before long. White Man's Burden, eh?

Marvellous stuff.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 9:11pm:

our confidence in the cultural imperialism that should take place.

Oh good grief

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130710153907/cardfight/images/f/fd/Godzilla-facepalm.png


Quote:

This is not to say we should ignore the failures and horror stories.

http://memecrunch.com/meme/USP4/um-ok/image.png

polite_gandalf wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 4:48pm:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2014 at 9:11pm: our confidence in the cultural imperialism that should take place. Oh good grief

Now now, I'm sure FD means good cultural imperialism. You know, Fox News and re-runs of Braveheart. A nice bit of soft power to counterbalance the Shahs and Suhartos the US installed in the march to demokracy.

Quote:

Here's the theory: Klein, N (2007. The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Knopf Canada.

Sounds like she is giving a new name to the oldest trick in the book. Linking it to electric shock therapy is a nice touch, if a little hysterical.


Quote:

Such "counter-examples" are hardly abberations. They are the rule.

You have only produced one example where this has lead to the destruction of democracy - an example where the original creation of the democracy is also attributable to western influence. I have given you examples of 79 democracies and 37 hybrid regimes, all historically recent and all tracing their origins to the recent rise of democracy in western Europe. The overwhelming trend has been for the spread of democracy. Would it help you comprehend this if I listed them one by one and asked you how each new democracy fits in with your shock therapy theory?


Quote:

Cultural imperialism? That's the spirit. You'll be quoting Kipling with old boy before long. White Man's Burden, eh?

Do you have a problem with spreading freedom and democracy? I'm not talking about meat pies and speedos here.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 5:54pm:

You have only produced one example where this has lead to the destruction of democracy

Guatemala, Chile and Iran were direct overthrows of democratically elected governments and replacing them with autocracies. You could also arguably include Indonesia, since at the time Sukarno was overthrown (helped by CIA covert operations), he was in the process of implementing his "Guided Democracy" program. But you also have to look at attempted overthrows of democracies, and the instability and destruction (not to mention undermining of democracy) that came with that. Nicuragua is probably the worst example here - where the terrorist contras were supported in their 10 year campaign of terror against the democratic Sandista government. Also Venezuela.

But the most important category here is the supporting of brutal dictators and the direct effect it had on stifling democratic movements: Indonesia, Pakistan, all the Gulf States, pretty much all of North Africa - but especially Egypt, Iraq, most of South America and lets not forget South Africa (the US was the last western power to abandon their support for the apartheid regime, which had the immediate effect of causing their downfall). Every one of these cases had functional democratic opposition movements that could have been supported, but instead were crushed with direct US support. Barely any corner of the globe didn't feel the impact of this "assistance".

Quote:

Guatemala, Chile and Iran were direct overthrows of democratically elected governments and replacing them with autocracies.

Chile is currently ranked in the 7's - pretty high by South American standards. Only Brazil matches it I think. That is on the high side of "flawed democracy", equal with France. Guatemala looks like it is ranked in the 5's - the high side of "hybrid systems". Both of these nations owe their democratic institutions to western influence. You ignore the dominant trend here - a textbook case of selecting the evidence to suit your skewed viewpoint.


Quote:

You could also arguably include Indonesia

Indonesia is a democracy today because of western influence.


Quote:

since at the time Sukarno was overthrown (helped by CIA covert operations), he was in the process of implementing his "Guided Democracy" program

In other words, moving away from the real democracy that had been set up by the UN.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 5:54pm:

Do you have a problem with spreading freedom and democracy? I'm not talking about meat pies and speedos here.

I most certainly do. It is, as you say, the oldest trick in the book. And as the old boy says, it simply can’t be done.

Demokracy, you see, has to grow from the roots up. Don’t like Klein?

Read the founder of conservatism,  Edmund Burke.

Sorry, FD -

Google: Edmund Burke.

Melanias purse wrote on May 6^th, 2014 at 9:42pm:

It’s a lesson in geopolitics. Iran has more oil than Saudi Arabia, but sanctions mean its people die from the most simple health problems, due to the lack of medicine. Iran should, or could, be one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

So why are they acting like bunch of loonies?
Who is making them buggers who undermine their own good fortunes?

(Because there always has to be some sinister outside forces in this Fvckauldian world. Nobody and no country is a fvckwit unaided.
Isn't it, PB?)

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 5:54pm:

You have only produced one example where this has lead to the destruction of democracy - an example where the original creation of the democracy is also attributable to western influence. I have given you examples of 79 democracies and 37 hybrid regimes, all historically recent and all tracing their origins to the recent rise of democracy in western Europe. .

Yes, but you haven’t actually read your Wikipedia link, now have you?

Hint: have a look at what it says on the Arab Spring.

The most recent moves towards demokracy have all been reactions against Western puppet governments and dictatorships.

In Europe itself, the GFC has seen a move away from demokracy - according to your favourite link, anyway.

Chile might be more democratic now, but this is because the US no longer has influence there. The lowered US presence in South America is a result of the creation of NAFTA, the post-Cold War trading bloc created by the US to compete with the EU.

Strange, once the US shifted its foreign policy emphasis away from Central and South America in the 1990s, they all seemed to rise on your Democracy Index.

Shurely shome mishtake, no?

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

Melanias purse wrote on May 6th, 2014 at 9:42pm: It’s a lesson in geopolitics. Iran has more oil than Saudi Arabia, but sanctions mean its people die from the most simple health problems, due to the lack of medicine. Iran should, or could, be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. So why are they acting like bunch of loonies? Who is making them buggers who undermine their own good fortunes? (Because there always has to be some sinister outside forces in this Fvckauldian world. Nobody and no country is a fvckwit unaided. Isn't it, PB?)

Oh, indeed. The Saudi loonies seem to get along just fine without trade sanctions, no? They even managed to get away with blowing up the World Trade Centre.

Typical. I blame Islam. Always absolutely never ever fvckwit potty pants.

Stilts.

FD the fact that many democracies today owe their institutions to European influence doesn't change the fact that the US spent most of the Cold War trying to quash most independent democratic movements.

Western democracies, whose systems third world nations understandably want to emulate, can be oppressive towards those third world nations - believe it or not.

You are not making any sort of relevant point here.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

FD the fact that many democracies today owe their institutions to European influence doesn't change the fact that the US spent most of the Cold War trying to quash most independent democratic movements. Western democracies, whose systems third world nations understandably want to emulate, can be oppressive towards those third world nations - believe it or not. You are not making any sort of relevant point here.

Emulate is the operative word here.

Some are truly free and democratic, others - most - emulate and fake it.
They are mostly Marxists - Groucho Marxists: Honesty - when you can fake that, you have made it.

Democracy is all about how people relate to each other. There will not be democracy in tribal societies because the tribe and the clan will not allow a democratic recognition of one another.
Third world countries are hell-holes because of the way the people perceive and relate to each other. Their contempt, partisan and vicarious hate and suspicion for/of each other makes their societies unbearable.

Soren wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

Democracy is all about how people relate to each other.

Yes, the old boy actually did say this.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

FD the fact that many democracies today owe their institutions to European influence doesn't change the fact that the US spent most of the Cold War trying to quash most independent democratic movements. Western democracies, whose systems third world nations understandably want to emulate, can be oppressive towards those third world nations - believe it or not. You are not making any sort of relevant point here.

Democracy is the invention of a bunch of pagan homosexuals (living suspiciously close to the Middle East  ;)).

Why did they invent democracy? Because they knew that nearly all of them were a bunch of deviant twisted jerks, and they couldn't trust anyone of them to have too much power.

If democracy was really great, then ask yourself why we don't vote on every major issue? Instead we elect a bunch of people to think for us for 3 or 4 years because we know that most people are too stupid/ignorant to make good decisions on every issue -  which begs the question "are the majority of people smart/educated enough to elect good leaders in the first place?"

The Greeks established democracy in Athens in 508 BCE. 28 years later Athens was sacked by the Persian Empire. Athens was constantly at war with its neighbouring city-states, and within a century of instituting democracy had lost its place as the predominant state in Greece.

Quote:

I most certainly do. It is, as you say, the oldest trick in the book. And as the old boy says, it simply can’t be done.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/democracy-index-map-2012.png


Quote:

The most recent moves towards demokracy have all been reactions against Western puppet governments and dictatorships.

So was the removal of Saddam Hussein.


Quote:

In Europe itself, the GFC has seen a move away from demokracy - according to your favourite link, anyway.

Do you have your own opinion on this?


Quote:

Chile might be more democratic now, but this is because the US no longer has influence there. The lowered US presence in South America is a result of the creation of NAFTA, the post-Cold War trading bloc created by the US to compete with the EU.

The democracy there is a result of the rise of democracy in western Europe.


Quote:

FD the fact that many democracies today owe their institutions to European influence doesn't change the fact that the US spent most of the Cold War trying to quash most independent democratic movements.

What is your point?


Quote:

You are not making any sort of relevant point here.

My point is that democracy has spread remarkably quickly throughout the world, because the west genuinely values it, genuinely exported it, and fought two world wars against decidedly undemocratic forces, and won. This is not a delusion, and not a convenient excuse to insult the intelligence of our soldiers. If we had lost either world war, that make would look very different.


True Colours wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 7th, 2014 at 8:19pm: FD the fact that many democracies today owe their institutions to European influence doesn't change the fact that the US spent most of the Cold War trying to quash most independent democratic movements. Western democracies, whose systems third world nations understandably want to emulate, can be oppressive towards those third world nations - believe it or not. You are not making any sort of relevant point here. Democracy is the invention of a bunch of pagan homosexuals (living suspiciously close to the Middle East). Why did they invent democracy? Because they knew that nearly all of them were a bunch of deviant twisted jerks, and they couldn't trust anyone of them to have too much power. If democracy was really great, then ask yourself why we don't vote on every major issue? Instead we elect a bunch of people to think for us for 3 or 4 years because we know that most people are too stupid/ignorant to make good decisions on every issue -  which begs the question "are the majority of people smart/educated enough to elect good leaders in the first place?" The Greeks established democracy in Athens in 508 BCE. 28 years later Athens was sacked by the Persian Empire. Athens was constantly at war with its neighbouring city-states, and within a century of instituting democracy had lost its place as the predominant state in Greece.

You are doing it wrong TC. You are supposed to pretend you support democracy, but try to find an excuse to undermine it at every opportunity. Ask Gandalf if you don't understand. He can show you how to reinterpret Muhammed's example to come to this position.

The reason we have representative democracy is the cost of direct democracy. This has historically been seen as an unavoidable trade-off, due to practical limitations, but there is a mechanism that combines the benefits of direct and representative democracy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

What is your point?

That the US didn't spend the cold war spreading democracy - quite the opposite.

I'm pretty sure I've made this quite clear.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2014 at 9:38pm: What is your point? That the US didn't spend the cold war spreading democracy - quite the opposite. I'm pretty sure I've made this quite clear.

Sorry, I really don’t get this. Any way you could rephrase it as FD’s point?

I think it spent the cold war fighting communism. Perhaps the answer is in Karnal's favourite book of conspiracy theories.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Quote: The most recent moves towards demokracy have all been reactions against Western puppet governments and dictatorships. So was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Now that’s a point.

A propaganda war, the presentation of botched evidence of WMDs to the UN, a bombing campaign, a ground invasion, a military occupation, a few hundred thousand deaths, the sacking of all Ba’athist government employees, the decimation of all existing forms of governance, and the final result of a protracted civil war -

Demokracy.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Quote: The most recent moves towards demokracy have all been reactions against Western puppet governments and dictatorships. So was the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Now that’s a point.

A propaganda war, the presentation of botched evidence of WMDs to the UN, a bombing campaign, a ground invasion, a military occupation, a few hundred thousand deaths, the sacking of all Ba’athist government employees, the decimation of all existing forms of governance, and the final result of a protracted civil war -

Demokracy.

Not many countries get it handed to them on a platter.

True Colours wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 7th, 2014 at 8:19pm: FD the fact that many democracies today owe their institutions to European influence doesn't change the fact that the US spent most of the Cold War trying to quash most independent democratic movements. Western democracies, whose systems third world nations understandably want to emulate, can be oppressive towards those third world nations - believe it or not. You are not making any sort of relevant point here. Democracy is the invention of a bunch of pagan homosexuals (living suspiciously close to the Middle East  ;)). Why did they invent democracy? Because they knew that nearly all of them were a bunch of deviant twisted jerks, and they couldn't trust anyone of them to have too much power. If democracy was really great, then ask yourself why we don't vote on every major issue? Instead we elect a bunch of people to think for us for 3 or 4 years because we know that most people are too stupid/ignorant to make good decisions on every issue -  which begs the question "are the majority of people smart/educated enough to elect good leaders in the first place?" The Greeks established democracy in Athens in 508 BCE. 28 years later Athens was sacked by the Persian Empire. Athens was constantly at war with its neighbouring city-states, and within a century of instituting democracy had lost its place as the predominant state in Greece.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it.

The 2007 FD would have frocked up with the best of us. The 2014 FD’s settled for Yadda’s hate sites and Herbie’s UK tabloid articles.

Freeedom.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 10:22pm:

Not many countries get it handed to them on a platter.

Ungrateful little bastards.

I blame Islam.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/democracy-index-map-2012.png

Freedom can be a very subjective concept. Not surprising that a bunch of Americans and Europeans decided that America and Europe were the most free places.

For example, Australia puts all sorts of restrictions on who you can marry, but we delude ourselves by saying "we are free".


http://rlv.zcache.com/goethe_quote_on_freedom_and_delusion_postcards-r82c3ac532d40466895be4d691d70a18f_vgbaq_8byvr_512.jpg

Come come, TC. The demokracy index is compiled by people from.all over the world. Economics faculties are full of Indians and Asians.

Which explains the old boy’s complete dismissal of economics.

Anyway, the  demokracy index is hardly talking about trivialities like marriage documents.

As FD shows, it’s about the countries Uncle invades to bring security, wealth and good governance.

You know, like Iraq.

True Colours wrote on May 7^th, 2014 at 11:22pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2014 at 9:38pm: http://www.ozpolitic.com/democracy-index-map-2012.png Freedom can be a very subjective concept. Not surprising that a bunch of Americans and Europeans decided that America and Europe were the most free places. For example, Australia puts all sorts of restrictions on who you can marry, but we delude ourselves by saying "we are free". http://rlv.zcache.com/goethe_quote_on_freedom_and_delusion_postcards-r82c3ac532d40466895be4d691d70a18f_vgbaq_8byvr_512.jpg

It is an index of democracy, not freedom. That being said, I think you'll find a very strong correlation with both freedom (the real kind, not the Islamic kind) and prosperity.

If you actually disagree with anything on the index, speak up.

Check out the top 10 oil producers, FD.

Strange. Most are near the bottom of your index. Only 2 green countries in the lot.

Now why would that be?

Easy wealth facilitates oppression. It was the same story with Spain and South America. The Spanish monarchy was able to ignore its citizens assembly because it had no need for them. It was filthy rich. There was a very similar assembly in Spain, France and Great  Britain at the time. In contrast, the British monarchy had to literally beg its citizens assembly for more money. In return it gave up more and more rights. Spain was the richest country in the world for a while, but went to being one of the poorest in western Europe, while Britain, one of the poorest and until then on the fringe of the civilised world, went on to conquer the world.

Being Muslim obviously doesn't help either. Either that, or too much electric shock therapy.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

Being Muslim obviously doesn't help either. Either that, or too much electric shock therapy.

I see. How does your theory account for the richest country in the world?

You know, the fine nation of Qatar?

Which theory in particular?

Qatar is rich because of oil, not because of anything inherently productive about the structure of their society.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 8:08am:

Which theory in particular? Qatar is rich because of oil, not because of anything inherently productive about the structure of their society.

While your European monarchy examples are compelling, there are also clear benefits to autocratic regimes. As a monarchy, Qatar is able to impliment the kind of long-term strategies our own system is unable to do due to our erection cycles.


Quote:

"The Qatar National Vision 2030 seeks to builds a bridge from the present to the future. It aims to transform Qatar into an advanced country, sustaining its development and providing a high standard of living for its people – for generations to come" THE QATAR NATIONAL VISION 2030 (QNV 2030) RESTS ON FOUR PILLARS: 1. Human development:    To enable all of Qatar’s people to sustain a prosperous society. 2. Social development:    To maintain a just and caring society based on high moral standards and capable    of playing a prominent role in the global partnership for development. 3. Economic development:    To achieve a competitive and diversified economy capable of meeting the needs    of and securing a high standard of living for all its people for the present    and the future. 4. Environmental development: to ensure harmony between economic growth,    social development and environmental protection.

This vision is not a motherhood statement. Qatar's economy is envied by many other oil-states. Through the Al Jazeera network, Qatar has an influence no other country of its size has. Through its lack of tax, it's able to attract investment. As an economy, Qatar punches well above its weight. This is the advantage of resources AND smart investment.

Alas, Australia has the former, but not the latter, and this is the problem with a system that has to buy votes every 3 years.

Quote:

While your European monarchy examples are compelling, there are also clear benefits to autocratic regimes. As a monarchy, Qatar is able to impliment the kind of long-term strategies our own system is unable to do due to our erection cycles.

Your argument is some kind of benign dictatorship?


Quote:

Through its lack of tax, it's able to attract investment.

So how does the government run? Is this some ingenious long term plan that a democracy could not achieve, or just huge amounts of oil money rebadged as government policy?

It sounds like they could be doing a whole lot worse, and many oil economies are, due to mismanagement, but it is still an oil economy.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 12:27pm:

Quote: While your European monarchy examples are compelling, there are also clear benefits to autocratic regimes. As a monarchy, Qatar is able to impliment the kind of long-term strategies our own system is unable to do due to our erection cycles. Your argument is some kind of benign dictatorship? [quote]Through its lack of tax, it's able to attract investment.

So how does the government run? Is this some ingenious long term plan that a democracy could not achieve, or just huge amounts of oil money rebadged as government policy?

It sounds like they could be doing a whole lot worse, and many oil economies are, due to mismanagement, but it is still an oil economy.[/quote]

It's an oil economy like the other OPEC countries. All have developed thanks to oil, not Mother or Uncle.

I am definitely not arguing for a benign dictatorship. I'm pointing out the advantages for development in semi-dictatorships, like Russia and China today, and before them, state-managed economies like the Soviet Union.

If we were to follow any form of political system, my ideal would be Northern European social democracy. We have similar resources and demography to a country like Denmark.

If we taxed our resources accordingly, I can't see why we couldn't have a very similar economy and provision of services.

But alas, we have Rupert, an obsequious US alliance, and a far more disengaged political - and social - system.

Every Norwegian is effectively a millionaire because of their sovereign wealth fund.

Us? We prefer to ship off 80% of resource profits overseas and let the miners scam their way out of paying a fair share of tax, plus help pay for their diesel.

Must be freedom.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 2:41pm:

Every Norwegian is effectively a millionaire because of their sovereign wealth fund. Us? We prefer to ship off 80% of resource profits overseas and let the miners scam their way out of paying a fair share of tax, plus help pay for their diesel. Must be freedom.

Or demokracy.

Mother knows best, eh?

Quote:

I'm pointing out the advantages for development in semi-dictatorships, like Russia and China today, and before them, state-managed economies like the Soviet Union.

In what sense are they "semi"-dictatorships? Because power is spread over the party?

Democracies can actually plan in the same way you describe. It is probably easier to do so in a democracy too. It appears easier in these authoritarian regimes because they are starting from so far behind that any simple improvement will make them look good, but they are building on a basis of no effective planning over centuries. The stable democracies of the world have had the public debates and gone though complex decision making processes that these countries still won't touch.


Quote:

If we were to follow any form of political system, my ideal would be Northern European social democracy. We have similar resources and demography to a country like Denmark.

Isn't that similar to what we already have? What do you mean by social? Economic socialism?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 2:41pm:

Every Norwegian is effectively a millionaire because of their sovereign wealth fund.

Link please. Also state if muslims made any contribution toward this?

Quote:

All Norwegians become crown millionaires, in oil saving landmark (Reuters) - Everyone in Norway became a theoretical crown millionaire on Wednesday in a milestone for the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund that has ballooned thanks to high oil and gas prices. Set up in 1990, the fund owns around 1 percent of the world's stocks, as well as bonds and real estate from London to Boston, making the Nordic nation an exception when others are struggling under a mountain of debts. A preliminary counter on the website of the central bank, which manages the fund, rose to 5.11 trillion crowns ($828.66 billion), fractionally more than a million times Norway's most recent official population estimate of 5,096,300.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/us-norway-millionaires-idUSBREA0710U20140108

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Quote: I'm pointing out the advantages for development in semi-dictatorships, like Russia and China today, and before them, state-managed economies like the Soviet Union. In what sense are they "semi"-dictatorships? Because power is spread over the party? Democracies can actually plan in the same way you describe. It is probably easier to do so in a democracy too. It appears easier in these authoritarian regimes because they are starting from so far behind that any simple improvement will make them look good, but they are building on a basis of no effective planning over centuries. The stable democracies of the world have had the public debates and gone though complex decision making processes that these countries still won't touch.

The US under the robber barons never really had public debates. The UK of the Corn Laws, or the Poor Laws,  or Triangular Trade never had them either. What you describe as "the stable democracies of the world" developed by quiet deals between private monopolies and their friends in government.

The British East India Company had an army,. At one point, it controlled and administered more people and territory than any state in the world.

In most cases, and the US is the the best example, the monopolies formed, or simply bribed, the government of the day - still do through lobbyists and political donations. Public debate was mediated - is mediated - by the very same monopolies. The Hearsts, General Electric, Rupert.

In the Soviet Union, the same functions were managed by the Party. This wasn’t communism, it was state capitalism. The Party merely administered supply, and where they could, demand. And no, power was not diffused throughout the party. Soviet power was vertical, not lateral.

Australia is a liberal democracy. The Fabian socialism of the ALP and the market liberalism of the Libs generally focuses on supply-side policies. Both major parties see the interest of business as the interest of the nation.

Or as Calvin Coolidge said, the business of Amerika is business.

All the way with Uncle, eh?

Quote:

In most cases, and the US is the the best example, the monopolies formed, or simply bribed, the government of the day - still do through lobbyists and political donations.

The US government had to win some key historical victories over monopolies to achieve the economy it has today. There are some sectors of the modern economy that trend naturally towards monopolies. This is not a deficiency of regulation, just the nature of the product being sold - almost zero marginal cost.


Quote:

Public debate was mediated - is mediated - by the very same monopolies. The Hearsts, General Electric, Rupert.

How much control do they actually exert? How did GE mediate public debate? The internet is undermining Murdoch's monopoly, bu there are no obvious political consequences, because there was no genuine control to begin with. There was just hippies looking for a convenient scapegoat for their inability to change people's minds. The Murdoch press is descending from the relatively lofty standards of journalism it used to have - towards the caricature that people build.


Quote:

This wasn’t communism, it was state capitalism.

What distinction are you trying to make?

Those "key historical victories" were only won when the big monopolies were hit by the Great Depression and the state was forced to act. There are indeed goods and services where monopolies are useful. Most, however, are the result of financial moves and corporate takeovers.

The lessons of those key historical victories were forgotten by the 1980s. The result was the 87 Wall Street crash, which in the US saw the rise of a new phenomenon: offshoring. In Asia, it saw the rise of the tiger economies.

Globalization was ripe for monopolies. In the US, this was what globalization was all about. Amerika designs and promotes the brands, and Asia manufactures them. That was the business model anyway, and to a large extent, this is how it's still played out today,  competition from European and East Asian brands notwithstanding. The US is still number one - until around 2020-something if the predictions of China's rise are accurate.

All countries develop under a form of authoritarianism. Certain rights and freedoms come later. Unions, for example, were illegal in the US until the 1930s.

Adamant wrote on May 9^th, 2014 at 6:45pm:

Also state if muslims made any contribution toward this

I thought you would not be able to answer that part of the question Gandalf!