So when you advocate for UK intervention, thus essentially siding with your government's decision, aren't you talking on behalf of your people? But when your government did something ugly, you distance yourself from your people? Which is it? I can't make the difference when you're you and when you're your people.,/i>
Ok, I have said stuff like ' we beat the germans in 1945' when actually I wasn't even around. strictly speaking , Britain beat the Nazis who ran Germany, but i think you know what I mean and yes, i know that the french, the canadians, and everyone else on the Allied side was more involved that I was, born in 1956 when it was all over.
Me ? I support my government when it does ' the right thing' - stands up for democracy, human rights, environmental protection and all that in a meaningful way.
I mean, I think it was a good thing that the british Raj abolished Sutee in India, and that the british Navy put an end to the slave trade throughout most of the world.
But ' we', ie, the British Empire also did stuff like set up concentration camps in South Africa to win the Boer War, and the colonial rule is now extended in many countries by business proxies. Like, for instance, Ghana is a land that grows cocoa - but no factory in Ghana makes chocolate bars. Why not? Because we, the british , won't let them! that's right , we have a treaty that says that they grow the stuff, but must sell it to us so we make the chocolate and can thus get maximum profit.
Now, this is one thing that Britain is not alone in , the exploitation of the world's poor. it's just that this is a uniquely English way of doing it and we, the briits, ought to put a stop to it, as we are directly responsible.
This may make things a bit clearer on whare Ii stand, but if not, please get baack to me. i will try to consistently try to speak of my country as a seperate entity to myself in future - in many ways, the government is :)
What matters is that your desired "democracy" won't arrive in Libya.,/i> I guess that you are right here. Consensus of opiniion , and smart opinion at that is pointing that way.
however, I still think that we should do our bit, rather than just leave gaddaffi to get on with it. Someone once put it to me that the guys who did not interve in the story of 'The Good Samaritan ' were doing the right thing. After all, there could have been robbers still lurking behind the rocks, leaving the guy there as bait for the next unwary traveller who came past.
Yeah, I can see that. but I'm afraid I am still the sort of guy who would risk going to help. I hope that Democracy will emerge, not just in Libya, but in Burmah and many other places. I know it does not seem likely, but we must just do our best and hope that what we do will counteract all the evil that goes on. I just hope that some good will emerge if gaddaffi goes, and I'm pretty sure that nothing will if he stays.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/3/11 14:03 (UTC)Ok, I have said stuff like ' we beat the germans in 1945' when actually I wasn't even around. strictly speaking , Britain beat the Nazis who ran Germany, but i think you know what I mean and yes, i know that the french, the canadians, and everyone else on the Allied side was more involved that I was, born in 1956 when it was all over.
Me ? I support my government when it does ' the right thing' - stands up for democracy, human rights, environmental protection and all that in a meaningful way.
I mean, I think it was a good thing that the british Raj abolished Sutee in India, and that the british Navy put an end to the slave trade throughout most of the world.
But ' we', ie, the British Empire also did stuff like set up concentration camps in South Africa to win the Boer War, and the colonial rule is now extended in many countries by business proxies. Like, for instance, Ghana is a land that grows cocoa - but no factory in Ghana makes chocolate bars.
Why not? Because we, the british , won't let them! that's right , we have a treaty that says that they grow the stuff, but must sell it to us so we make the chocolate and can thus get maximum profit.
Now, this is one thing that Britain is not alone in , the exploitation of the world's poor. it's just that this is a uniquely English way of doing it and we, the briits, ought to put a stop to it, as we are directly responsible.
This may make things a bit clearer on whare Ii stand, but if not, please get baack to me. i will try to consistently try to speak of my country as a seperate entity to myself in future - in many ways, the government is :)
What matters is that your desired "democracy" won't arrive in Libya.,/i>
I guess that you are right here. Consensus of opiniion , and smart opinion at that is pointing that way.
however, I still think that we should do our bit, rather than just leave gaddaffi to get on with it. Someone once put it to me that the guys who did not interve in the story of 'The Good Samaritan ' were doing the right thing. After all, there could have been robbers still lurking behind the rocks, leaving the guy there as bait for the next unwary traveller who came past.
Yeah, I can see that. but I'm afraid I am still the sort of guy who would risk going to help. I hope that Democracy will emerge, not just in Libya, but in Burmah and many other places. I know it does not seem likely, but we must just do our best and hope that what we do will counteract all the evil that goes on. I just hope that some good will emerge if gaddaffi goes, and I'm pretty sure that nothing will if he stays.