gracheeha

There is one reason why I would disagree with Volokh, even though his analysis is exceptionally clear: the two major parties are constantly shifting what they stand for.

From:

Справедливости ради отметим, первое, что Волох делает, он оговаривает, что не призывает голосовать за сукина сына в "A. The truly awful candidates." Более того, он считает поражение такого кандидата может быть лучше для партии, чем победа.

From:

Это правда. Д и Р на самом деле являются конгломератами разных течений, которые для удобства победы в условиях representative democracy сбились в две конкурирующие стаи. Внутри каждой стаи - своя динамика. Нередко избиратель выбирает одну из стай, как меньшее зло.

From:

... После просьб "не переходить на личности, хотя бы на ЖЖ"?..

(http://change.gov/)

From:

І справді... Чи це Демократ сказав у 20-му сторіччі: "The United States will pay any price, share any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty", -- чи Республіканець -- у 21-му?

From:

Such statements absolutely transcend party lines. I highly recommend George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language":

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

What was true in England 1946, remains true in US 2008.

From:

Such statements absolutely transcend party lines.

І, коли вони transcend, кращі з них залишуються з Консерваторами, які, навіть, деякі з них проводять у життя. Що -- як, наприклад, звільнення Іраку -- дуже не подобається (так званим) Лібералам, які б швидше ці слогани і подалі перебували слоганами...

I highly recommend George Orwell's ...

Цікаво... Лише кілька днів тому, коли я процитував Оруела на цих саме сторінках, пані Грачіха відповила, щоб я не "давив авторитетами". Зараз ще раз спробую...

(http://thepeoplescube.com/)

From:

avzel.livejournal.com

Логичный текст, конечно, но как-то уж больно не вяжется с классическим американским индивидуализмом, вам не кажется?

From:

Let's put that quote in the context of his essay:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw

George Orwell wrote "Pacifism and the War" in 1942, in England, when Germany and England were in a declared war:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one."

Later on in the essay, Orwell writes:

"it is quite true that I served five years in the Indian Police. It is also true that I gave up that job, partly because it didn’t suit me but mainly because I would not any longer be a servant of imperialism. I am against imperialism because I know something about it from the inside."

And also:

"I have never attacked ‘the intellectuals’ or ‘the intelligentsia’ en bloc. I have used a lot of ink and done myself a lot of harm by attacking the successive literary cliques which have infested this country, not because they were intellectuals but precisely because they were not what I mean by true intellectuals."

From:

"it is quite true that I served five years in the Indian Police. It is also true that I gave up that job, partly because it didn’t suit me but mainly because I would not any longer be a servant of imperialism. I am against imperialism because I know something about it from the inside."

The only modicum of sense I can extract from your feeling, that this quote has anything to do with the thread is that you feel, that, somehow, our war on Saddam Hussein was an act of Imperialism. It was not — no more so than support of Europe against Soviet Union, South Korea against the North, Israel against the "Arab brothers" for a few more examples.

I have never attacked ‘the intellectuals’ or ‘the intelligentsia’ en bloc

The applicability of this one escapes me completely...

From:

My apologies, I should've made myself more clear.

Indeed, I am pointing out the difference between 1942 England and 2003 US: In 1942, England is in an officially declared war with Germany, and the British towns are regularly bombed by the Germans; Germany planned to invade England as early as 1940, though the plan was never actualized. Iraq is neither bombing nor invading US; US bombs and invades Iraq.

Do I feel that this is an act of imperialism? Let's see: American Heritage Dictionary defines imperialism as "the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations." If the shoe fits...

As for the other quote---"I have never attacked ‘the intellectuals’ or ‘the intelligentsia’ en bloc"---one of the reasons why I enjoy Orwell's essays is because he is always specific, and avoids lumping all opponents into groups (though he recognizes schools of thought). I would appreciate if we could emulate his example.

From:

England is in an officially declared war with Germany

Oh, but it was all their own fault! Hitler wanted peace with Britain — he really did. That fool Churchill thought it was not acceptable, that Hitler be able to take over Poland and Chechia — but that was all Churhill's fault!

Iraq is neither bombing nor invading US; US bombs and invades Iraq.

Not for lack of desire on Iraqi's part. Iraq has invaded an America's ally (Kuwait), bombed (and sponsored terror-attacks against) another (Israel), and failed on its earlier cease-fire agreements. Clinton chose to bomb it once in a while, Bush chose to invade it and change the regime for good. Both were justified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/letter_from_america/3513221.stm)...

Let's see: American Heritage Dictionary defines imperialism as "the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."

Well, by this definition, indeed, America's defense of (Western) Europe during Cold War, as well as our continuing defense of South Korea, Taiwan, and Israel, the anti-Serbia campaign, and the Iraq war are all manifestations of Imperialism. And so would be our intervention in Sudan. And if so, then I like it.

Moreover, I suspect, Orwell would've liked it too — because Britain and US chose to oppose Hitler exactly for the purposes of "extending their nations' authorities". And, boy, have they succeeded! And, boy, has the world been a better place for it!

Now, to reconcile the evil connotations commonly associated with the term "Imperialism" with the fairly benign definition, which you quoted, perhaps we can agree, that it is Ok to manifest, what would otherwise be "Imperialism", in the face of somebody else's Imperialism? We can then acquit Bush, because Saddam Hussein has, no doubt, pursued Imperialism of his own (even if unsuccessfully)... What do you think?

avoids lumping all opponents into groups (though he recognizes schools of thought). I would appreciate if we could emulate his example.

I still don't understand... Are you asking me to stop "lumping" you with Грачиха? Ok, sure...

From:

I suspect that we can come to a partial agreement. When I recognize an action as imperialistic, that in itself does not imply a moral judgment. However, I do hold all such actions suspect until proven otherwise.

I'm a little surprised by your link to Alistar Cooke's story-time parody as a justification. I assure you that my standards of proof are somewhat higher than that.

I do consider it justifiable for one country to use its power and influence to stop violence, just like it would be justifiable for me to physically damage an attacker. But just like I would have to justify why I had no choice but to use violence, so should a country. I do not accept protecting economic interests as reason for initiating violence; I do accept defending unjustly invaded or violently repressed people as such a reason. Still, even in the latter case, it's important that the results of the action not be worse than those of inaction for those same people.

So, by these standards, George H.W. Bush was justified in defending Kuwait, but Clinton was not justified in bombing Iraq or imposing the economic sanctions which primarily hurt Iraqi civilians (and, I believe, propped up Saddam Hussain's dictatorship). Neither was George W. Bush justified; a suspicion that Saddam Hussain would've loved to invade us or our allies if he could is not sufficient.

Yes, and thank you for not lumping me with Gracheeha; though I and she do frequently agree, I still answer for myself.

From:

Да... это я сглупила... Кто бы мог подумать, что известный профессор в 7-летнем возрасте запускал воздушного змея! Вся остальная информация о нём - in public domain.

From:

В политике американцы не такие уж и индивидуалисты, подавляющее большинство из них не являются independent, но ассоциируют себя с Д или Р.

From:

avzel.livejournal.com

Вы уверены? У меня нет цифр, но мне казалсоь, независимых не так уж и мало. Да и зарегистрированные Р. и Д., мне почему-то кажется, не шибко уважают партийную дисциплину.

From:

не шибко уважают партийную дисциплину

Вот поэтому Волох и распинается, что дисциплину надо соблюдать.

From:

When I recognize an action as imperialistic, that in itself does not imply a moral judgment.

You quoted Orwell, where he disagrees with Imperialism. That implied judgment. Not Orwell's judgment, but yours. You tried to show, that much as Orwell disagreed with the pacifists of his own time, he would've joined the pacifists of 2003 in condemning America's Imperialism in case of Iraq.

Your argument must have been (I really see no other path) thus: Orwell disliked the Imperialism of the Raj, so he must dislike all Imperialism, so he would've disliked attack on Iraq, because that too was Imperialism...

I maintain, that just as Orwell sympathized with the cause of Britain (despite its Imperialism) in the struggle against Adolf Hitler (and his Imperialism), he would've sympathized with the US in its fight against Saddam Hussein. This means, the line I quoted earlier is perfectly appropriate, while the one you picked is not...

But just like I would have to justify why I had no choice but to use violence, so should a country.

If you want to argue by analogy, than a more appropriate one would be of Saddam having been convicted in 1991 and released on probation. He violated the (generous) terms of that probation enough times to be subjected to various enforcement actions by Clinton and George W. Bush, the latter deciding to implement the original (deferred) punishment. Either of the two enforcers were entitled -- just like a real probation officer would be — to use their own judgment and needed no further justification other than the parolee's obvious violation of the release terms.

Consider this — would you have objected to George H.W. Bush pursuing Saddam Hussein all the way to Baghdad in 1991-92? No — his earlier aggression was obvious to all and the punishment would've been just. So, why are you objecting to his finally getting that punishment 12 years later, after he failed to fulfill the obligations imposed on him in exchange for leniency?

I don't understand, why you dismiss Alistair Cooke's column off-hand, for he makes a perfect case in plain (if delightful) English, without either too much passion nor legalese. But it does not really matter...

(Is Cyrillic really so difficult to install where you are? As enjoyable as this discourse is, there are plenty of other English forums. And yet here, where we could converse in Ukrainian, we use English anyway on account of technical problems so ridiculous, that they could've caused Obama to release a video mocking an opponent's incompetence...)

From: