Ukraine

[eighthobstruction]

[I]

Great mistake not to step in and save Syria, as observed by ACL Blair

....Ah now then there's a statement that needs an emoticon....to ascertain it's real meaning/delivery....I'm afraid Tony it is a too complicated issue for you to deal with in black and white terms, and with the help of God in binary terms....I'm just waiting for some leading politician to tell you to - just shut up - much as they did with Thatcher in the 90's....in the same way that I think the best diplomacy at the moment would be to put courtesy aside and words of less weight - and just start calling Putin and cabinet duplicitous liars in public....

[amateur51]

Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.

Great mistake not to step in and save Syria, as observed by ACL Blair

Sadly the reluctance to intervene in Syria arose almost entirely from that fine mess at ACLB and GWB got 'the West' into in Iraq. A bit rich for Blair to cluck - back to counting your money, pal.

[eighthobstruction]

Sadly the reluctance to intervene in Syria

I don't think there was any 'sadly' involved....the many in this country said don't intervene with cruise missiles....don't ally with groups of which there seemed to be involved with al Queada, plus several other reasons....

[amateur51]

I don't think there was any 'sadly' involved....the many in this country said don't intervene with cruise missiles....don't ally with groups of which there seemed to be involved with al Queada, plus several other reasons....

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The Iraq adventure has so complicated the vested interests that wish to intervene that no-one can be certain as to whom to supoort, hence the reluctance.

Given his track record I don't understand why Blair is given 'the oxygen of publicity' by which he can appear as a world statesman. He is a suspected war criminal and needs to feel the firm smack of justice at some stage.

[french frank]

And I only brought Syria into it because, apart from the factional interests within the country, there were the growlings between Russia and the US again.

'Course, nothing like knowing which side you're on, and ploughing on regardless. If we're not involved, we'd better do something about it.

[Serial_Apologist]

The problems of the world won't be resolved until we all start to re-see things in class, rather than race or religious terms. As long as this doesn't happen and we point our accusing fingers in the wrong directions for all the wrong reasons, the rich and powerful are laughing all the way to the bank.

[vinteuil]

The problems of the world won't be resolved until we all start to re-see things in class, rather than race or religious terms. As long as this doesn't happen and we point our accusing fingers in the wrong directions for all the wrong reasons, the rich and powerful are laughing all the way to the bank.

... put simply, "the problems of the world won't be solved."

Certain problems will be solved from time to time. Others will arise. We live in an imperfect and unperfectible world.

To limit "the problems of the world" to the problems of class is - limited.

[Serial_Apologist]

... put simply, "the problems of the world won't be solved."

Certain problems will be solved from time to time. Others will arise. We live in an imperfect and unperfectible world.

To limit "the problems of the world" to the problems of class is - limited.

Capitalism in alliance with science has done much to counter illness and poor hygiene, but it has always needed a pool of poverty somewhere in the world to maintain levels of competitiveness and profitability, whose symptoms not even the measures of Keynsian demand-management and mixed economics from the 1940s to the 1970s, introduced under pressure, like universal suffrage, succeeded in allaying. Problems of eco-destruction and overpopulation, I'd argue, relate to the voracious and wasteful character of capitalist (re)production, and its perpetuation by power, political and ideological manipulation. Any society would need to budget for its own protection, of course, but if we end up resorting to generalisations about human imperfectability we fail to take note of societies that have found sustainable solutions - China before the Mongol invasions for example; the elixir should be easier to enact, given the generalisation of knowledge as to the predicators of harmony and happiness on a global scale.

[vinteuil]

if we end up resorting to generalisations about human imperfectability we fail to take note of societies that have found sustainable solutions - China before the Mongol invasions for example; the elixir should be easier to enact, given the generalisation of knowledge as to the predicators of harmony and happiness on a global scale.

... oh, you old marxist optimist, you! :lovehug emoticon:

[Serial_Apologist]

... oh, you old marxist optimist, you! :lovehug emoticon:

Yes vints, Caliban rarely replies to my posts these days... <erm>

[eighthobstruction]

<broad smile>....

[french frank]

The problems of the world won't be resolved until we all start to re-see things in class, rather than race or religious terms.

Hmm. I'm sceptical too, if only because the 'class concept' is, at root, 'natural'. Because once you have your egalitarian society, where all races are tolerated as being equal, and all religions are tolerated/destroyed, you will always have those who are stronger, physically or in character, those who have greater acuity. You have to believe that these 'inequalities' will never again give rise to classes where some rise and take a disproportionate share of resources. But China and Russia still have their oligarchs, wealthy and powerful.

Re-seeing things in class (as the root of all evil) seems like the 'savages' who had the land and the 'white men' who had religion. The trusting savages were taught to kneel and pray, and when they opened their eyes, they had religion and the white man had the land.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hmm. I'm sceptical too, if only because the 'class concept' is, at root, 'natural'. Because once you have your egalitarian society, where all races are tolerated as being equal, and all religions are tolerated/destroyed, you will always have those who are stronger, physically or in character, those who have greater acuity. You have to believe that these 'inequalities' will never again give rise to classes where some rise and take a disproportionate share of resources. But China and Russia still have their oligarchs, wealthy and powerful.

Yes but China and Russia have reverted to capitalism, having gone through a period of Stalinism, (and Maoism, an outgrowth of Stalinism, in China's case), in both cases examples of what can happen when capitalism's overthrow is followed up with little support from outside, or in underdeveloped countries without a strong organised working class. One could name the many more where the latter happened.

[french frank]

Indeed - and I'm not suggesting that because inequality is 'natural' (rather that it's rooted in natural differences) that society has to tolerate the ensuing social injustices. But the fact that Russia and China have reverted to capitalism might also be a sign that creating a classless society doesn't mean destroying a 'class system' for good and all. New classes emerge, don't they?

[eighthobstruction]

It is/was the dynastical regimes and tyranny which were/are so obvious in Libya, Eygpt, Syria etc that made these conflicts in the first place....nepotism and sinecures....family bonds and well -fatted administrative class, corruption....and summary justice for the rest, that gave these conflicts a certain flavour....Of course now the rebels are engaged in inter faction conflicts....