The Putin Legacy

...and how Iraq comes into everything.

Published on April 16, 2007 By Leauki In War on Terror

The Sandmonkey points to an interesting article about Vladimir Putin, one of the peace camp in 2003.

Discussion of the article quickly turned into the usual Iraq war argument. But this time, I think, I finally got what is going on in liberals' minds.

Read the comments. It seems like liberals really do reject the concept of personal responsibility. It is not just a right-wing claim about them and it is not something the left do to "help the poor", but it really is a concept they don't understand or believe in. Instead they are looking for some connection to the US or Israel and, realising that someone must be blamed for what goes wrong, blame the appropriate out of the two.

Another thing I noticed is that Europeans do make a difference between a government and a people, even in a democratic country, where the people elected the government they wanted (and got the government they deserved).

My conclusion:

Who is to blame for blowing up a mosque in Iraq?

1. The terrorist who did it and the people who funded him.

2. Iraqi society.

3. The Americans.

4. Israel.

These days the differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives blame 1, 2, 3, 4 in that order while liberals blame Israel first, the Americans second, Iraqis third, and the terrorists last.

Any comments?

Comments

Dr Guy

on Apr 16, 2007

Fascinating read. Starts out with Putin's legacy and degrades into another Bush bash. I was especially amused by the comments saying how Europeans liked Kerry better. Sure! Since he is a nobody that has done nothing - what is there to dislike about him in Europe?

But I do like your posts since they bring out the obvious, and no one seems to be debating them. The others (it could just be a timing issue) have backed off of their "Everything is Bush's fault" when exposed to your 1234 example.

Leauki

on Apr 16, 2007

Europeans don't know what George Bush stands for or what John Kerry stands for. And neither do they know that the two stood for the same in 2003.

Leauki

on Apr 16, 2007

In fact, I think the 1234 method can be used to define politial positions.

Let it be a more general 1234:

1. The Agent.

2. Society

3. America/Imperialism

4. The Jews

Depending on one's political position, one tends to blame for a mishap the four above in specific order.

I personally, for example, tend to blame in the order 1234: I think that a crime committed or any bad act done is first of all the criminal's or actor's fault. Second, I'd blame society for creating an environment which encouraged the agent to act as he did. Then I'd blame imperialism for the creating, perhaps, the environment in which such societies develop. Then I'd blame the Jews last, or not at all (which is what position 4 means).

Others put the blame in different order.

For example, an old-style honest liberal or social democrat might react to a crime committed by a "disadvantaged youth" in the US in order 2134, meaning that he believes that society made the young man commit the crime, whereas America as such is only to blame for failure to react while the Jews have nothing to do with the crime.

As for Iraq, most liberals today seem to fall into the 3214 category, while white supremacists and Islamists fall into 4321.

Dr Guy

on Apr 16, 2007

Your 1234 is today's world, but could jsut as easily be substitued for ancient wrongs as well. Just replace 3 and 4 with the top dog then, and the scape goat then (4 would be Jews in many bygone eras - not necessarily Israel).

The scary part is that the substitution is so easy, that it indicates far from learning from the past, we are just repeating it.

Leauki

on Apr 16, 2007

It's pretty much universal, except for anti-Americanism.

In the old days only few people had a voice in politics, and while as many of those were corrupt and evil as today, they were more educated. The voters did not hate the British Empire for being an empire, only for not being one's own empire, in the case of non-Brits.

The few times when the hated minority was not Jewish, "4" would be something else. Good and common replacement-Jews are Gipsies, American Indians, the Irish etc. But mostly, in history, it was the Jews themselves who played the role of "the Jews".

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!