Bush's visit to Britain

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Were the Brown Shirts of Hitler wrong?
Were the peasants following Pol Pot wrong?
Were the common soldiers of the Taliban wrong?
Were the Confederates wrong?

They obviously were since they were all reactionaries. They protested against change, against the force of history driven forward by class-conflict. They enjoyed temporary succes but in the long run their methods were self-defeating. Now, you could hardly call the pro-peace faction today a reactionary force. And certainly not rabid nationalists or religious zealots.

[Pekka]

I don't know what the general atmosphere is in UK, I guess it's nation devided? But granted, if you get 1 or 2 million to march... that's huge. When is Bush visiting? It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


They obviously were since they were all reactionaries. They protested against change, against the force of history driven forward by class-conflict. They enjoyed temporary succes but in the long run their methods were self-defeating. Now, you could hardly call the pro-peace faction today a reactionary force. And certainly not rabid nationalists or religious zealots.

Of course I wouldn't call them that.

I'm just answering

when have demonstrators who have felt passionatley for a cause ever been proven wrong?

with examples when they clearly have.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk

with examples when they clearly have.

I would call those you mentioned Fanatical.

However would you say that the pro-peace faction is fanaticla and reactionary and willing to use violence as the first option?

[The Mad Monk]

Oh...and I'd love to see you make that stick against Pol Pot.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Oh...and I'd love to see you make that stick against Pol Pot.

Pol Pots regime was clearly reactonary. Anyone who wore glasses or spoke French were shot.

[The Mad Monk]

However would you say that the pro-peace faction is fanaticla and reactionary and willing to use violence as the first option?

Did you actually read the entire post?

I answered that specifically.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Pol Pots regime was clearly reactonary. Anyone who wore glasses or spoke French were shot.

...and the storming of Bastille led on to Robespierre, The Committee of Public Safety and "the revolutionary razor".

Your point?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


...and the storming of Bastille led on to Robespierre, The Committee of Public Safety and "the revolutionary razor".

Your point?

And Robespierre was eventually guillitined himself. I would still say that overall the revolution eventually brought many good things to the French people.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


They obviously were since they were all reactionaries.

I think you could make a strong cause for calling all protests "reactionary". That's not to say they're right or wrong, of course.

However, I think you're wrong. There have been any number of protests from causes I'd consider wrong, anyway.

[The Mad Monk]

And Robespierre was eventually guillitined himself. I would still say that overall the revolution eventually brought many good things to the French people.

Also much bloodshed, terror in the name of progress, and eventually, the rise of Napolean on a tide of blood not to be equaled until World War One.

[The Mad Monk]

BTW, Pol Pot's regime ultimately choked on its own blood, and "many reforms were brought about".

Does that justify the genocide?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


I think you could make a strong cause for calling all protests "reactionary". That's not to say they're right or wrong, of course.

However, I think you're wrong. There have been any number of protests from causes I'd consider wrong, anyway.

I certainly think that a case can be made that the current surge in hostility towards Bush's policies might be labeled reactionary. Certainly rightist intellectuals will say that Bush is the only major force of real change in the world. For instance his call on the Arab countries to democratize and his tax-reforms certainly.

If you look at it objectively i don't think any voter will disagree that it would be nice with a Muslim world that was Democratic and a world with no taxes. I guess many people are worried that such a process will mean some great upheaval in how the world is run.

It will be interesting to see if it will work.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


Also much bloodshed, terror in the name of progress, and eventually, the rise of Napolean on a tide of blood not to be equaled until World War One.

They were fighting all the monarchies of Europe you know, who hated the idea of a revolution in thier own countires. Very natural, of course. Not all of it was brought upon them by the revolution solely.

[The Mad Monk]

Which does not contradict anything I have said.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
BTW, Pol Pot's regime ultimately choked on its own blood, and "many reforms were brought about".

Does that justify the genocide?

I thought that they were defeated by the Vietnamese.
Why would the Vietnamese attack if Pol Pots regime was truly communist and reformist. I am skeptical as to the real ideaology of Pol Pot.

[The Mad Monk]

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Which does not contradict anything I have said.

I guess not, but it does qualify it a little bit.

Looking at history as some sort of contest between right and wrong is not very productive. I am more interested in what moves civilasation to a higher stage and what brings it down to a lower more primitive stage.

[The Mad Monk]

You're Agathon's DL, aren't you.

[Ming]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You're Agathon's DL, aren't you.

Let's play nice now...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

Looking at history as some sort of contest between right and wrong is not very productive. I am more interested in what moves civilasation to a higher stage and what brings it down to a lower more primitive stage.

That's a little tricky to judge without hindsight.

[The Mad Monk]

Let's play nice now...

I'll be good!

Anyways, I'm done here.

Toodles!

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
You're Agathon's DL, aren't you.

To clear any confusion, I emphatically state that I am not.

Signed.

Tripledoc

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


That's a little tricky to judge without hindsight.

I would say it is almost impossible. Especially when history is being rewritten in the process and policy goals are changing on an almost day to day basis. I guess what people need is some kind of consistency on behalf of the leaders, so they can make proper jugdments.

[DanS]

I think if there's an incident, like him being hit by a tomato or an egg, that's reported back in America, it could damage his election prospects more than the pictures with the Queen could help.

To clear up any potential confusion, this wouldn't change the votes of many American voters. Neither will pictures with the queen.

As Tripledoc mentions, I find it interesting that Bush is one of the only political figures worldwide who is arguing against the status quo. His speech on ME democracy was a masterpiece, but it is earning him enemies, especially among supposed democrats.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by DanS
As Tripledoc mentions, I find it interesting that Bush is one of the only political figures worldwide who is arguing against the status quo. His speech on ME democracy was a masterpiece, but it is earning him enemies, especially among supposed democrats.

On the other hand, it might be like painting yourself into a corner. One can wish for democracy, but how will such a democracy turn out? One can demand democratization, but how will hostility be avoided?
One can be a good and lead by example, but then again, the world is so full of cynics. And what if there is in fact already a democratization process taking place, will Bush help or derail any further progress, seeing how he clearly has some public relations problems with the Arab world. The revolutionary will always be faced with a monumental task.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
The last US President to get one was Woodrow Wilson after the First World War. The idea that Bush is anything like Woodrow is laughable.

How so? They both lauched wars to defend democracy and ended up instaling the UK as a major power in Iraq.

[Ned]

Just a point about the potential for assassination, every president since Lincoln that was elected on a 20 year anniversary of his election, 1860, has died in office, many times by assassination. The sole exception seems to have been Ronald Reagan, who was shot but survived because they got him to the hospital in time. But it was very close.

Bush was elected in 2000.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush was elected in 2000.

What if Gore got assassinated instead? Then we'd finally know who really won.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How so? They both lauched wars to defend democracy and ended up instaling the UK as a major power in Iraq.

Woodrow didn't launch the First World War, and he didn't 'install' Britain as a major power in Iraq. Neither did Bush, Britain has no power in Iraq.

Woodrow set up the League of Nations (too bad America never joined), Bush has little time for the UN.

Woodrow led America to pre-eminence; Bush is leading it into the abyss.