Bunting: 'This callow arrogance about the political cultures of other countries, more than any other issue, prompted my opposition to both wars.' That's an indirect way of saying (since it's a tough number to actually say it) that, in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq, projects of regime change and democratization were inevitably doomed because the indigenous cultures aren't receptive to them. No word about the millions in both countries who have come out to vote, under threat of violence against them if they did, showing every sign of a hunger for democracy. No word about the forces in those countries, trade unionists, women's groups, civic organizations, battling as best they can in desperate circumstances. No word.Stunning.
15 March 2006
QUITE RIGHT
Norm lays into Madeleine Bunting on Iraq — with some panache — here. (Bunting's piece is a boiler-plate leftist appeal to continue to ask who was guilty for the Iraq debacle etc.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Except Norman Geras lays into what he says MAdeline Bunting is 'indirectly' saying , not what she actually writes. I could spend all day laying onto what I say Geras is indirectly saying, rather than what he writes, but that would be living in a little self contained bubble, playing with puppets , wouldn't it ?: Bunting could equally be saying that the US were only playing at democracy to cover up there more simple desire to demonstrate power in the region with bombs: the way they picked Iraqi's who had no support in Iraq as their allies shows this, for example. The fact that the supposed "democratisation" plans did not reflect the region shows they were not really serious about democracy.
I'm afraid dead people can't vote, and there are more of them every day thanks to your squalid war for oil.
Libsoc indeed
Post a Comment