Bush picks Wolfowitz for president of World Bank

Paul Hotflush

techno head
LOL! I'm feeling your analysis man. Can't quite be arsed to pitch in with any serious posts of my own, so I'm keeping to sweeping generalisations...
 

turtles

in the sea
Paul Hotflush said:
the acceptance that the current situation (American dominance) is infinitely preferable to any realistic alternative (the most likely current one being American dominance being replaced by Chinese economic and political dominance).

....

It pretty much boils down to this: no-one's saying the Americans are a picture of virtue, but bloody hell, what about everyone else?!
So, as matt b said, we should just give up? Just stop trying to make things better, stop criticizing those doing harm, because, hey, who can think of anything better? This is TERRIBLE reasoning, trying to pass off your failure to think outside of the modern political doctrine as "realism." I know k-punk has written a fair amount about this (i believe he calls it "capitalist realism"). But basically, what the hell is this "realism" you seem so keen on? Who defines it? What does it entail? Does this "realism" allow for any sort of actions that are outside of the status quo? Doesn't it basically just state that anything outside the status quo is unthinkable, and shouldn't that maybe worry you a bit?

Please, tell me what is so "unrealistic" about the US following international law.

"Realism" is just a huge cop-out, when you've finally given up on trying to improve things, and have decided to disguise your capitulation as pragmatism.
 

turtles

in the sea
oliver craner said:
While I'm here I might as well comment on this too, i guess.

Well, it's nice that Wolfowitz is continuing on with the debt relief program (by no means his idea, of course), I'm very interested to see what strings come attached to all these anti-corruption measures. I have a rather sneaking suspicion that somehow it will all end up involving the classic "hey why don't you open up your markets more to foreign investment, which just may so happen to allow many large american companies--who just may happen to be lead by many of my close friends and associates--to come in and make loads of profits at the expense of local businesses and government." And then maybe some of the good old "hey what do you think your trying to do privatizing your oil industry/health care system/general infrastructure maintenance you communist swags!"

just a suspicion though...
 

Paul Hotflush

techno head
bipedaldave said:
Please, tell me what is so "unrealistic" about the US following international law.

The whole concept of international law is ridiculous. Whose values is it built upon? Who enforces it? How can it be enforced evenly? Having laws that apply internationally assumes that conditions can be applied across continents, which is clearly not always the case.

In any case, the notion that the US is the only country ignoring the current legal setup is absurd. So why don't you guys bang on about the other offenders? Oh yeah, sorry I forgot.


bipedaldave said:
So, as matt b said, we should just give up? Just stop trying to make things better, stop criticizing those doing harm, because, hey, who can think of anything better? This is TERRIBLE reasoning, trying to pass off your failure to think outside of the modern political doctrine as "realism." I know k-punk has written a fair amount about this (i believe he calls it "capitalist realism"). But basically, what the hell is this "realism" you seem so keen on? Who defines it? What does it entail? Does this "realism" allow for any sort of actions that are outside of the status quo? Doesn't it basically just state that anything outside the status quo is unthinkable, and shouldn't that maybe worry you a bit?

No-one is suggesting you shouldn't try to make things better, but you have to take account of the conditions. The example of African aid is a good one: if you told aid agencies in the 80s that most of their money would end up in Swiss bank accounts because most African governments are as corrupt as hell and/or too incompetent to spend money effectively they'd have dismissed you as a capitalist, and probably racist, pig. With America now, you're much better off trying to cajole it into changing its ways rather than closing your eyes, hoping it crashes and burns, and leaves us at the mercy of those nice, free speech-loving Chinese.

The point is, maybe if more of the people that apprently care so much about the less advantaged took acount of what happens in the real world, they might actaully achieve something, rather than getting beaten up by the police at those incredibly productive anti-captialist demonstrations, or sitting on their behinds posting on web forums.
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
hey why don't you open up your markets more to foreign investment

Can you imagine anything worse for Africa?

Actually, that's already happened. It's just the investment is exploitation, if not criminality, and benefits Africa's corrupt remaining despots and juntas and warlords.

It would be rather an improvement under the auspices of the World Bank and against the interests of aformentioned despots, juntas, warlords, I think.

Then again, there was that guy who thought an African caliphate would be a better idea. Where'd he go?
 

owen

Well-known member
bipedaldave said:
"Realism" is just a huge cop-out, when you've finally given up on trying to improve things, and have decided to disguise your capitulation as pragmatism.

seconded!

in craner's analysis there's this dogged fatalism (hidden admittedly with erudition and a faintly creepy if enjoyable exultation in destruction)- 'governments (or indeed business) always act in their own interests, have always done will always do'- which seems so utterly point-missing.
sure, so this is true, but surely the conclusion one should draw from this is to, y'know, like try and change the system itself?

oh and 'international law' is a total red herring.

and surely various of these 'juntas' and 'despots' exist because of the comprehensive destruction of socialist or social-democratic movements in these countries? eg mobutu being essentially installed by belgium and the US, etc.
 
Last edited:

turtles

in the sea
Paul Hotflush said:
The whole concept of international law is ridiculous. Whose values is it built upon? Who enforces it? How can it be enforced evenly? Having laws that apply internationally assumes that conditions can be applied across continents, which is clearly not always the case.
Ummm, the Geneva Convention? Made by a consensus of international powers, reflecting a general shared believe in the value of human life and the need to mitigate unnecessary cruelty. It could even be said to be a "realistic" document, in that it doesn't try and outlaw all war (that would be "unrealistic") it just tries to minimize the uhhh "collateral damage" war often causes. And the enforcement was supposed to be done by those who signed up for it--many of whom have definitely been remiss. But again, isn't uneven enforcement better than none? Why give up on it all just because it's not perfect?

In any case, the notion that the US is the only country ignoring the current legal setup is absurd. So why don't you guys bang on about the other offenders? Oh yeah, sorry I forgot.
Alright, that's a bit of a strawman argument there, please don't try and argue that lefties don't care about the crimes of other nations. They do. However, there are two reasons why they (and myself too, I suppose) tend to focus more on the US (and UK and Canada, and many other western gov'ts). One is that these crimes are very much NOT focused on by the news media and (obviously) the government, so we feel the need to point these things out in order to get them heard, and also to show the hypocrisy of these governments.

The second one is that the US really is the most dangerous country in the world right now (there, I said it). Do you see any other countries unilaterally invading other countries, completely illegally, completely unprovoked, and then occupying the country, installing a government of their own choice, and then sitting there, staring out at the world and practically daring them to do something about it? That is some scary fucking shit. They can just invade a country for no good reason and no one can do anything about it. That is the scariest thing I have ever seen in my life and I desperately want it to never happen again.

I don't hope america crashes and burns (I know lots of nice americans), but yes i definitely want americas power in the world to decrease. Surprisingly enough I don't want the chinese to be in power either, what I would like would be if no one country had as much power as the US does right now, and that the relative power of these nations might counterbalance each other enough to ensure a bit of relative stability. At least from there the chances of effecting real change might be a bit better.
 

Paul Hotflush

techno head
bipedaldave said:
Ummm, the Geneva Convention? Made by a consensus of international powers, reflecting a general shared believe in the value of human life and the need to mitigate unnecessary cruelty. It could even be said to be a "realistic" document, in that it doesn't try and outlaw all war (that would be "unrealistic") it just tries to minimize the uhhh "collateral damage" war often causes. And the enforcement was supposed to be done by those who signed up for it--many of whom have definitely been remiss. But again, isn't uneven enforcement better than none? Why give up on it all just because it's not perfect?

I based my comments on the failures of the Geneva convention. It's a joke, as is any attempt to devise and implement a set of overarching international laws.


bipedaldave said:
Alright, that's a bit of a strawman argument there, please don't try and argue that lefties don't care about the crimes of other nations. They do. However, there are two reasons why they (and myself too, I suppose) tend to focus more on the US (and UK and Canada, and many other western gov'ts). One is that these crimes are very much NOT focused on by the news media and (obviously) the government, so we feel the need to point these things out in order to get them heard, and also to show the hypocrisy of these governments.

The second one is that the US really is the most dangerous country in the world right now (there, I said it). Do you see any other countries unilaterally invading other countries, completely illegally, completely unprovoked, and then occupying the country, installing a government of their own choice, and then sitting there, staring out at the world and practically daring them to do something about it? That is some scary fucking shit. They can just invade a country for no good reason and no one can do anything about it. That is the scariest thing I have ever seen in my life and I desperately want it to never happen again.

I don't hope america crashes and burns (I know lots of nice americans), but yes i definitely want americas power in the world to decrease. Surprisingly enough I don't want the chinese to be in power either, what I would like would be if no one country had as much power as the US does right now, and that the relative power of these nations might counterbalance each other enough to ensure a bit of relative stability. At least from there the chances of effecting real change might be a bit better.

Yes, I agree with most of that, especially with how quick-draw American foreign policy seems to be. But not the bit about the media not focussing on Western governments. The Guardian and other left-wing media are overflowing with poorly-researched inflamatory nonsense about the actions of various governments and corporations, half of which they subsequently have to retract.

Anyway, I'm retiring from this board, my work is done here.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
They can just invade a country for no good reason

You act like you haven't paid attention to any of the arguments put forward in support of Iraq's liberation, but I know that can't be the case.

One is that these crimes are very much NOT focused on by the news media

This is really no longer the case, unless you watch Fox news alone.

installing a government of their own choice

Also, not the case. An innacurate accusation. Very nearly the exact opposite happened. Besides, different parts of the Administration (CIA, Defense, State, etc.) would have preffered different candidates, hence all the spats and bad blood in Washington.

a bit of relative stability

What does that mean? Realpolitic, greasy diplomacy, the Peace Dividend, pacifism: there is, you understand, no inherent glory in "stability". Stable for whom?

And Owen (very nice blog, incidentally) I'm not a dogged fatalist - you obviosuly do not understand, or are unfamiliar with, my "analysis" if you think so. I haven't given up on "trying to improve things," although I don't do a lot of it myself (I mean, I could start with my own life), which is why I supported the war, and could do nothing but. We tried, and are trying, to "change the system" in Iraq. And I say we including our great allies, for example President Talabani and the IFTU. Behold, the federal constitution. Understand who wants to undermine it, and why.
 

bassnation

the abyss
Paul Hotflush said:
Yes, I agree with most of that, especially with how quick-draw American foreign policy seems to be. But not the bit about the media not focussing on Western governments. The Guardian and other left-wing media are overflowing with poorly-researched inflamatory nonsense about the actions of various governments and corporations, half of which they subsequently have to retract.

examples please. i read the left wing press all the time and i haven't seen ANY of these retractions you talk of.

and in any case, if you want inflammatory nonsense you can pick up any of the right wing papers (which are in the majority if you hadn't noticed).
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I hadn't noticed that! Bland centre-ground or liberal papers are in the majority, aren't they?
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
oliver craner said:
I hadn't noticed that! Bland centre-ground or liberal papers are in the majority, aren't they?

liberal/left: guardian, independent, observer, mirror
right: sun, times, daily mail, daily express, news of the world, daily telegraph, star
 

bassnation

the abyss
matt b said:
liberal/left: guardian, independent, observer, mirror
right: sun, times, daily mail, daily express, news of the world, daily telegraph, star

plus the circulation of those on the right dwarves that of the left - ultimately right wing media in this country has a massive distorting influence.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
bassnation said:
plus the circulation of those on the right dwarves that of the left - ultimately right wing media in this country has a massive distorting influence.

the sun, the times and the mail are the 'agenda setting' papers too.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
People on the right say exactly the same thing about the left! Oh dear.

The Times is centrist now. It's also a largely diminished "force". The only two Tory rags left are the Telegraph and the Mail.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
oliver craner said:
People on the right say exactly the same thing about the left! Oh dear.[/I].

but they're wrong :)

oliver craner said:
The Times is centrist now. It's also a largely diminished "force". The only two Tory rags left are the Telegraph and the Mail.

if you're calling blair 'centrist', then yes. i'd call him right wing.
the express is tory!
 
Top