HOME | DD
Velica — War time irony
Published: 2009-04-19 00:40:08 +0000 UTC; Views: 9025; Favourites: 21; Downloads: 3997
Redirect to original
Description
Maybe one day the Iraqis can return the favour.Related content
Comments: 34
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
When interviewed, they complain. They say the power network sucks, the economy is terrible, the government is slow, sanitation is bad, unemployment is high, prices are unforgiving, and all this they blame (mainly) on the Americans.
But when asked if it was all worth it, all the death and destruction to get where they are now, a surprising number turn right around and say "Yes."
I guess it's because they're actually allowed to complain about it all now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll be waiting for the liberation of Saudi Arabia, Barhain, Syria, North Korea, Iran, China, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Somalia, etc etc etc.
But I can wait for too long given that some of these authoritarian regimes are actually "convenient" and supported by the West. Let's not fool ourselves, its nothing to do with liberty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. I believe some British monarch said "Nations don't have friends. They have interests." and liberty is rather low in value to another nation. I would say the "liberation" of Iraq as a side-effect of Dick Cheyne's dumbass ajenda post 9-11.
You also have to consider that a lot of this "support" to authoritarian/totalitarian regimes came from the Cold War, a messy time with little consideration to long-term thinking and, resultantly, a great deal of messes we have yet to sort out. If anyone cares enough to...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would rephrase that to "Governments don't have friends. They have interests."
I fail to see how the support of the autocratic Saudi Arabia of today is justified by any Cold War alliance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not. That's the ineffectiveness of governments being unwilling to make tough calls, like stressing oil relationships. And there are some cases where Cold War alliances are very important to modern politics; the whole of Afghanistan, for one--again, poor long-term planning coming back to haunt us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree with MouseDenton . The motives for the Coalition are not entirely humanitarian. But those who say Iraq is worse off now are people who can't separate the motive for the liberation from the effect. Listen, I was against going in. But you ask around Iraq, the majority of people there will tell you the are better off now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, that always struck me as a bit odd. I mean, when the American government says that we're bringing democracy somewhere most of us take that as some jingoistic cover-up for some politician's ulterior motives, but it's at least kind of believable. You know, being a republic, this makes some level of sense. I never really grasped why the UK got involved. A monarchy, even a parliamentary one, is still a monarchy.
I digress...
About the cartoon: It's funny and points out the jarring hypocrisy of the UK's involvement in the war. I like the dumbfounded expressions on the Arabs' faces as they look at the big, crazy British soldier. The artist comment fits pretty well as a caption for the whole image and I really like that. Nice job!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
These days the Brits will do what the Americans tell them to do. Its a perfect owner and pet relationship
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, I guess the tables have turned then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What goes around comes around, I guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The UK is more democracy now. I think I would've preferred a monarchy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Less decisions and, if things went wrong, you could say it was not your responsibility.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I definitively agree. I wasnt implying that every single British citizen and soldier bears some sort of medieval patriotism that supports the war. I was merely trying to underline the irony of a (parliamentary) monarchic country bringing democracy to another country.
Seems to me that Britain, like most other European countries, is loosing its influence in the world. This is normal, how can any of us match China, India or the US? However, the remaining European nations are now pursuing a stronger united identity, the EU, that has a real chance of standing strong in this world. But the Brits seem to prefer to serve the US rather than join the EU... and end up being somewhere in the middle, floating somewhere in the North Atlantic.
These Labour governments might not have been what Britain deserved but going for an isolationist Conservative government could make it even worst. Separatism is so 20th century!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand and almost totally agree with you.
I'm Portuguese and smile everytime a piece of Portuguese culture or history is mentioned. I know we are not the best nor the worst, we are who we are. Probably everyone feels the same about their home country.
The problem with some British is that often they are either dismissve of their culture or overly proud. If I were British it would be sou proud to say that I come from the place where the industrial revolution first started, where Darwin, Shakespeare and HG Wells wrote their master pieces, etc, etc.
Instead I see a lot of proto-skinheads with england flags tattooed on their arms yelling about some empire and how they used to rule everything. Such arrogance and superiority complex is not only offensive but very idiotic.
Nowadays, people abroad see the Brits as a barbaric bunch that come on holidays, get drunk, fight, yell, drop a big tip and leave in a low cost flight to work in 9 to 5 job at Tesco's. You may blame all of this on the Labour years but it seems the deccharacterization of Britain is just a big post-war syndrome.
In a way, every other country in Europe have reinvented themselves either by loosing a war (Germany, Italy) or by having a revolution to get rid of some shit form of government(France, Portugal, Spain, Poland, etc.). THe only country I can think that nothing has happened is Britain. Maybe this is it, maybe its labour, maybe its both.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It didn't quite work out as planned, did it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, better luck next time. Who shall we invade next?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd go for Poland. Guarateend success.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yes. What could possibly go wrong?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh come on, everyone had a pice of it at least once in History. Its a playground there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LOL! Embora, de todos os países, provavelmente o Reino Unido seja o que tem maior tradição democrática, apesar de ser uma monarquia.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Como assim?
Eu sei que a familia real ja nao tem o poder que em tempos teve, mas a rainha ainda eh a chefe de estado, com honras e cerimonia que nem o nosso Cavaco tem. Depois claro tens a camara dos lordes, que o sao por direito hereditario e que tem poder de veto sobre as decisoes da assembleia, essa sim eleita pelas pessoas.
E nao esquecer que quando chega o dia de votar so tens trabalhistas ou conservadores que, a bem dizer, nao diferem muito um do outro.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sim, é verdade, mas ainda assim é o país com maior tradição democrática: não te esqueças que, antes da revolução francesa ou antes do nascimento dos EUA já havia um parlamento em Inglaterra. Foi também um dos primeiros países a limitar o poder do rei, desde os tempos da Magna Carta. Mais, já havia o direito ao Habeas Corpus no séc. XVII, se não estou em erro, impedindo assim que alguém fosse preso sem cupla formada. Há, e quanto aos partidos, existem vários partidos. É certo que os Tories e o Labours são quem dá mais nas vistas (tal como os nossos PS e PSD), mas há outros, como os Liberal-Democrats. Há, e quanto à camara dos lordes, apesar de terem poder de veto, hoje em dia eles são meramente simbólicos, quase nunca agem.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Os parlamentos nao apareceram em nome da democracia. Esses parlamentos de que falas eram eleitos ou nomeados para representarem as diferentes regioes do pais, de forma a melhor aconselhar o rei ou rainha? A Magna Carta, por extremamente inovadora que tenha sido, tambem nao eh uma marca de democracia. Quanto muito eh uma marca de emancipacao, dizendo que *em teoria* nem a familia real esta acima da lei. Mas eh inocente acreditar que esta carta de direitos tenha vindo proteger o aldeao desgrenhado que trabalhava as terras do seu senhorio por quase nada.
O unico terceiro partido que tem alguma representacao sao de facto os Lib Dems. Mas mesmo assim nas ultimas eleicoes so conseguiram 9% de representacao no parlamento. O panorama portugues eh muito mais rico com 6 partidos representados no parlamento (distribuidos ah esquerda e direita). Isto a meu ver eh melhor democracia, mesmo que PS e PSD tenham sempre as costas quentes o eleitor tem varias opcoes ah esquerda e direita para "castiga-los".
Depois ha a atitude dos britanicos em relacao a isto tudo que, a meu ver, eh a causa de muitos males.
Seja como for, entrar por um pais adentro a prometer democracia (que ja se sabia que nunca ia ser conseguida em menos um par de geracoes) eh no minimo surreal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sim, isso é inegável: um país que vai invadir outro em nome da democracia é, na prática, um paradoxo, é quase o mesmo que começar uma guerra para trazer a paz.
Mas aquilo que eu queria sublinhar é que há muitas instituições e conceitos usadas na democracia actualmente que surgiram pela primeira vez em Inglaterra(como o parlamento composto por representantes, a ideia do contracto social, o "habeas corpus" ou, mais recentemente, a Segurança Social e o Serviço Nacional de Saúde), e que não era pelo facto dum país ser uma monarquia que isso o torna menos democrático (a Bélgica, a Dinamarca, o Luxemburgo, a Noruega e a Suécia são exemplos disso).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sim, verdade.
E tambem Espanha e Holanda sao monarquias parlamentares.
Claro que a importancia e poderes que sao dados aos monarcas variam bastante de pais para pais.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
