Rath said:
Naninho said:
Rath said:
Naninho said:
What still amaze me today is how fast the british struck back. Obviously Thatcher didn’t give a fuck about her people. It seems she wasn't very different from our dictators. Stuff like this, is far more important than any debate we could have about any particular conflict. The sad part is, no matter what we do, it will always happen again...
|
I find this bit interesting. How does Thatcher striking back make her alike to a dictator? Even democratic countries have militaries and they often use them at far less provocation than they got.
|
We assume that democracies try to avoid getting involved in wars. Democratic leaders must answer to the voters for war, and therefore have an incentive to seek alternatives. Still, this is completely illusory, and serve only to mask the reality of elite rule.
Thatcher's willingness to sacrifice the lives of others is undeniable.
Whilst the Argentineans, under the leadership of Dictator General Galtieri were being whipped up into a patriotic fervor, the UK Government seized at the chance to whip up the same patriotic fervor in there. The media took up the cause, and the Argentineans were portrayed as blood thirsty opportunists who would destroy the British way of life on the Islands. Despite the Islanders having to rely on Argentina for post and supplies, the British were fooled into accepting that they must claim for some islands they never heard of.
Thatcher, was also going through a massive loss of domestic support and elections were looming. She knew the patriotic cheer leading would lead to death, but politicians are more than willing to sacrifice others so that they can hold onto power. She played the same game as Galtieri.
As crazy as it seems, democracy and dictatorship are two faces of the same coin...
|
I have no problem with believing that democractic leaders will go to war for votes (modern example - Bush in Iraq). When you think about it the fact that the war won her so much popularity (and essentially the next election) meant that her decision was upheld by democratic principles - she answered to the British voters for the war in the next election and won by a landslide.
|
I don't think Bush went to war for votes. If anything I think he used excess "poltical capital" from 9/11 to invade Iraq.
I mean, the Iraq invasion support was at highest 60% AFTER inspections WITH a UN Manda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#January_2003te.
I literally can't tell you why Bush invaded Iraq, just why he didn't.
Best theory i can come up with is a dangerous combination of black and white idealsim and wanting to one up his Dad combined with a bit of cognitive dissonance to where he actually believed he was justified and that the questionable reports were the right ones due to his gut.
I think he did it because he thought he could swoop in, take out Saddam, put in a Democracy, stick it to his Dad for not finishing the job in his presidency (back when cheney was against occupation) and in general going down as the President who started the US' big push for democratic change in the world by coming to the opressed's aid.
I know it sounds completely ludicris and laeves you thinking "How could someone who is president think that way?" However honestly, it fis the best.
