I support the democratization of Iraq. I believe in our efforts there. This put me in an unusual position during the Orange Revolution, because one of Yushchenko's campaign points was a pull-out of troops from Iraq. I decided that the fate of 48 million Ukrainians outweighed their contributions in Iraq. It was the right decision.
No doubt, some of my readers are angry about the prospect of Ukrainian troops leaving Iraq. At least one has made the point that if Yushchenko really supports democracy, he needs to support it in Iraq as well. There's been comparison of any Ukrainian pull-out with the retreat of the Spanish in the face of the train bombing.
I can understand these points of view. To me, the electoral defeat of Aznar by the terrorists seems to be a blot on Spanish honor. But there is a real difference between Spain and Ukraine. Aznar really believed in the war. His government really was "willing."
Ukrainian troops ended up in Iraq as a bid by Kuchma to buy his way back into American good graces after the Gongadze murder and the allegations of radar sales to Iraq. The Ukrainian people were overwhelmingly against it, and the government itself did everything it could to undermine support for the war -- the anti-American drumbeat on the TV was relentless. It's understandable if public opinion is now firmly entrenched against the war.
People were overwhelmingly opposed -- I spent the months before the war constantly defending American policies to friend and stranger alike. If any country matches the critics' attacks on the coalition as mercenary and coerced, it's Ukraine.
My personal wish is that Ukrainians would come to see the value of the work in Iraq, and that the Ukrainian troops would stay. People will hopefully hear both sides now that the media has freed itself from the shackles of the temniki.
In the meantime, Yushchenko has been democratically elected by a people who want the troops home. Many of the readers here support the freedom of the Iraqi people to choose their destiny, but can we then ignore the freedom of Ukrainians to do the same?
UPDATE- One key aspect I overlooked in this is that Ukraine's parliament has already approved a resolution demanding the withdrawal of the troops. This gives Yushchenko even less potential freedom of movement.
Posted by Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 08:59 PM | TrackBack
I cannot think of a more opportune time for Ukrainians to become AWARE of the importance of INTERNATIONAL AND INTERVENTIONIST policies to aid DEMOCRACY.
REAL leaders exhibit REAL LEADERSHIP and risk political captial to do what is right. If Yuschenko and Tymoschemko are REAL DEMOCRATS then then MUST RE-EVALUATE their position on troop deploymment in Iraq.
The FACT is, that international assistance made it possible for Ukraine to become/remain/enjoy DEMOCRACY. IT was ESSENTIAL. If Ukraine fasils to come to th assistance of others yearning for democracy, then they become ingrates like France, Germany, and post-Aznar Spain.
As Mark Steyn pointed out in his latest column: 4 out of the top 6 tsunami aid givers are also members of the Coalition of the Willing ++++ they donated use of their militaries to do the REAL WORK of aiding the survivors. WHY IS THIS NOT SURPRISING? Because the UK and Australia and Japan GET IT!!!! We have NEVER forgotten the cost of freedom - or the obligation that comes with it.
Our true allies have never forgotten the cost WE PAID to get them their liberty and democracy.
We shall see if Ukraine forgets, and joins the COALITION OF THE UNGRATEFUL. We shall see if they stick their heads in the ground and pretend that appeasement is an effective policy for contending with tyranny or terror.
I FEEL that the struggle that Yuschenko surmounted SHOULD make him able to rise to occasion and change his mind on Iraq. I FEEL that his unquestionable COURAGE should make him able to confront AND CONVINCE his followers that this is part of the debt that all of us who have regained our natural innatefreedom owe to our brothers and sisters who have not yet re-gained it.
WE SHALL SEE. It is certainly his call. That is part of the beauty of democracy and the free world. And it's part of what PROVES that America has no hegemonic interests and is NO EMPIRE: our allies are free to disappoint us - and the rest of humanity that yearns to be free (as the Ukrainians are NOW!).
We shall see.
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 9, 2005 10:01 PMYushenko MUST keep his promises. He is not pulling out due to fear or a threat--real or implied. He made a promise and he MUST keep it, just like that guy in the Bible who promised to sacrifice on the alter the first thing to come out of his house if God delivered him, and it turned out to be his daughter. He kept his promise.
It may not be pleasant to my line of thinking, but I do not fault Yushenko for his promise and fulfilling his promise. I would actually think less of him if he reneged right now. It would cast a pall of doubt on his integrity, and the integrity of anything ever does in the future--and that is what the Ukraine needs the LEAST right now.
Yushenko can support the Coalition of the Willing in a myriad of ways--troops is not the only thing that the Coalition needs right now. A Rammstein-type military base comes to mind. Can you imagine the strategic advantage in the Middle East that NATO/The Coalition/The US would have by having a full-capacity, fully-functioning base in the Ukraine? That way, when Turkey balks or waffles, we won't have to fly direct from Germany, we will have a backup (which may become primary, who knows?)
To put Yushenko in such black and white terms--Coalition of the Willing vis a vis Coalition of the Ungrateful is more than just unfair, it is purely misguided. Imagine how the world would be if we really believed that were true?!? We'd be nearly at war with France and Germany right now. And I guess Spain, too. Who wants that?
I'll take Ukraine's non-military support. It's like being a conscientious objector--unwilling to kill, but still being able to support the effort by sweeping the kitchen, cooking, providing a military base, or something along those lines.
Posted by: Marty in Oregon at janvier 9, 2005 10:26 PMmarty: you OBVIOUSLY overreact! wooooweee!
I NEVER said that Ukraine had anything to fear if Yuschenko keeps his pledge to remove troops.
Just as France and Spain and Germany have had nothing to fear.
SHEESH!
REALLY?!?!??!?!? LOOKIT: when France pulled out of NATO and asked the USA to remove our bases -- WE DID SO!Ditto the Philipines. PROVING:
AMERICA IS NOT AN ANGRY EMPIRE.
Anyone that really belives that the USA is an empoire belives in something that is nothing more than shallow propaganda. HISTORY DOES NOT SUPPORT IT. Current events do not support it!
So, Marty: get off it. Take a deep breath, and relax.
All I wrote is that if Ukraine now WITHDRAWS TROOPS FROM IRAQ IT IS BAD - bad for Iraqis and for the worldwide historical struggle for people to become free and democratic.
SURE: there are other ways Ukraine might help. BUT WHY WITHDRAW THE TROOPS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE? It sends a bad signal, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE NEED TROOPS THERE UNTIL THE IRAQIS CAN FEND FOR THEMSELVES!
How would Yuschenko have faired if the world told him to fend for himself!?!?! The Ukraine might have become a BLOODBATH - and the tyrants might have ended up winning - they usually do when they use force and the Free World stands by and does nothing! REad about Hiotler's rise to power, willya?! Sheesh!
SO..in that light: Ukrainians WOULD BE INGRATES IF THEY WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ.
To me that is unquestionable, beyond argument.
Just a fact. And facts are stubborn. And they can be unpleasant.
One might only reasonably and honorably counter - IMHO - that he should keep his campaign pledge.
I consider "keeping a campaign pledge" (to be more isolationist) to be of a lower moral order than breaking said pledge in order to return the favor and help other nations/peoples establish democracy.
(In this regard: THE UKRAINE OWES MORE TO THE FREE WORD THAN SPAIN!)
Now more than ever, Yuschenko should change his pledge; NOW - after what the FREE WORLD DID FOR HIM, and ESPECIALLY after the deadly attack on his troops.
If he keeps his pledge (and withdraws) there will no retaliation by the USA or by any other country in the Coalition of the Willing.
There will only be disappointment, and the earnest wish that ONE DAY Ukraine will join the good fight abroad for freedom as it fought for it at home.
For every human deserves to be free.
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 9, 2005 11:33 PM Your coverage of the Orange revolution was wonderful and I even got interested in your religion. But your comparison of the situation in Iraq and Ukraine is just not right.
I am afraid the the Bush gang could have fit in very well with the other "clans" (is that the term?).He has ravaged the economy for the gains of his backers, approved torture as proper, taken the rights away from a whole group who he identified (foreign fighters)and of course unilaterally (well almost)overthrew a recognized if not likable govt with the intension of putting in a puppet regime headed by Chalabi. I fear that the proper analogy for Iraq is Chechnya not the Ukraine. Remember that Mr. Bush felt that Putin was a man "he could work with" and has. They seemed to have agreed to call them both terrorist states and allow the other free rein (or reign.)
Ukraine for Bush was more of an annoyance then a triumph
BTW Bush was shamed into giving massive Disaster aid. Initially he offered $15mil, the $35mil -til shamed by other donors
BUT WHY WITHDRAW THE TROOPS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE?
Because each nation has the right to decide for which causes it is willing to sacrifice lives for.
You say that Ukrainians being "ingrates" if they withdraw from Iraq, and you compare Ukraine's support to the American effort in Iraq to Ukraine's support. Ofcourse one big difference is the support USA and Europe gave to Ukraine was diplomatic, not military.
That means we (both USA and Europe) risked little to nothing: not a single American or European risked his life in order to support Ukrainian democracy. It was Ukraine's people that strove for democracy, and it's *their* democracy to do what they see fit.
So don't go asking Ukrainians risk their lives to "support democracy in Iraq". At the *very* most they are obliged to do what USA and Europe did: denounce fraudulent elections in Iraq and through diplomacy support honest ones.
The kind of democracy which is obliged to follow the calls of its foreign supporters, rather than the voice of its people, is not a true democracy.
Once again: Each nation has the right to choose the causes for which it wages war for. You might *like* Ukraine to support you in Iraq, but they're not *obliged* to do so.
And Yushchenko doesn't have the right to "change his mind", if he's made it an election pledge.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 10, 2005 01:35 AMAris, you wrote:
"not a single American or European risked his life in order to support Ukrainian democracy"
The USA won the frigging COLD WAR and defeated the USSR! With us there'd be no independent Ukraine!
Therefore: YOU ARE AN INGRATE!
And, of course, Yuschenko can do whatever he wants; he made a pledge; he can keep it - or do the right thing and change his mind.
Everyone has the right to change their minds - even Yuschenko - that's what liberty and democracy are all about; I sugggest you get used to it! (I pray you have the chance to!)
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 10, 2005 03:45 AMReliapundit-
I'm going to say something, and you can take it for what it's worth. . . Bringing out the flaming sword at every debate is a really bad idea. The way you're posting, no one is going to listen to what you have to say. If your purpose here is to win a hearing for your ideas, then text-based shouting is only going to be self-defeating. I'm saying this respectfully, and as a fellow supporter of the war.
By the way, Aris is a good guy, and a very smart one. Calling him names doesn't seem particularly well calculated to win him over.
Again, just a FWIW.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 10, 2005 04:07 AMThe upcoming elections in Iraq MAY be marginally more free and open than those held under Soviet occupation in the central/east European countries in 1945-1948, if only because the lead occupier is a country with democratic traditions of its own, but at the very least a degree of skepticism is in order. Supporting the occupation of Iraq in the name of "democratization" is... let's say, open to debate. Many would argue that democracy is not something that can be imposed from outside by foreign invaders; it must be developed by each society from within. And that's taking the Bush administration at its word that its interest is in democracy rather than, say, geostrategic leverage over oil resources (never mind those phantom WMDs). I applaud Yushchenko's resolve not to wager Ukrainian lives in such a dubious enterprise.
Posted by: Michael at janvier 10, 2005 04:23 AMdisco shaman - cool. but facts are facts - and name-calling is part of free speech / democracy.
i will not retract; i am sure aris is a good guy - if you say so, but his statement speaks for itself.
FACT: without the usa, all of the peoples of the ussr and all its satellites would still be in chains.
we americans spent TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS to defend liberty and defeat the USSR.
Aris' baltant disregard for that is ungratefulness. PERIOD.
and ungratefulness should be called what it is whenever it rears its selfish little head.
being PC will not cure anyone of their ungratefulness and selfishness and neo-isolationism.
sometimes, ya gotta smack somebody to get their attention. I hope I did that.
Ukraine will do as a majority of Ukrainians wants, but that doesn't mean it will be correct.
this is a moment of truth for Yuschenko, and the orange movement - for Aris and all the others like him: they will either join the fight, or sit and carp from the sidelines - like the french and the germans and the spaniards.
BOTTOM-LINE: WE DO NOT NEED THEM. It would be good and nice and better if they were on board.
If they would rather stand with Zapatero and Chirac and Schroeder, fine. Again: it says more about them then anything I can write in CAPS!
I pity them - their naivete and ungratefulness. It's a shame, but all to common.
They have been brave for themselves, but - if they go ahead and withdraw from Iraq - they will NOT be being brave for their brothers and sisters in Iraq - who deserve freedom every bit as much as they do.
It is cowardly and ungrateful and selfish.
If America and the UK and Australia and the EU felt that way about the first election in the Ukraine, then Kuchma and Yanukovich woud still be calling the shots.
But that's just my opinion.
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 10, 2005 04:55 AMmichael;
contrary to your handmedown left-wing anti-American view: the usa has imposed democracy before - on germany and japan, and recently in afghanistan.
in many other countries too.
the spainards did not win democracy - it was bequeathed to them by franco.
besides Michael, in a very real sense, democracy is never really imposed - democracy is the natural way for free persons to band together and form a mutually consensual system of self-rule; democracy is the only way, really.
rather, it it tyranny which is imposed on people who are all - each and every one of us - born free and independent, with free and independent and willful souls.
in this sense, the usa doesn't "impose democracy" it removes tryanny and helps the LIBERATED people find a culturally relevent way to create the machinery for self-rule/mutually consensual government.
so, take a deep breath and JOIN US IN THE HISTORICAL STRUGGLE TO ACHIEVE UNIVERSAL LIBERTY.
"For freedom and democracy are NOT America's gifts to the world; they are God's gifts to all humanity."
- GWBUSH (paraphrased)
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 10, 2005 05:56 AMThe USA won the frigging COLD WAR and defeated the USSR! With us there'd be no independent Ukraine!
Both the USA and Western Europe fought the 'frigging Cold War', first of all because for our own sake and our own security and to preserve our own system of liberal capitalistic democracy.
There's nothing wrong with that. But I won't be asking any eastern European to feel gratitude because of sacrifices that were primarily for our *own* sake.
And as a sidenote, I'm not Ukrainian, I'm Greek, which was a NATO member during the whole of the Cold War, so if you are to call me an ingrate, atleast call me an ingrate for the right reasons. :-)
Aris' baltant disregard for that is ungratefulness. PERIOD.
USA cared little for democracy outside its borders during the Cold War *except* when it suited its purposes -- examples are the military junta in Greece, and the various military regimes in Latin America.
Once again -- the West fought the Cold War for its own benefit. There's nothing wrong with that, but the stuff about the eastern countries needing to be grateful towards us is utter utter crap.
Such "gratitude" is nothing but a chain you are trying to build. Let them be free to decide what is best for their own nations, rather than try to have them enter wars based on the concept of "gratitude". If the people of Ukraine thinks that sending troops to Iraq is wrong either from a moral or practical perspective, that's their belief -- you can try to change it through logical arguments, but not through the concept of "gratitude".
Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 10, 2005 09:23 AMPlease, Aznar was not defeated by the terrorists. He was defeated by lying about which terrorists committed the act. A Ukrainian pull out makes sense if they believe in true democracy, as opposed to the enforced-from-without model, and should help in putting to rest the lie that Yuschenko is some tool of America.
Posted by: Kirill Nils Senior at janvier 10, 2005 05:29 PMari - ukraine is free - that means free to do the WRIONG thing, and free to be criticised when they do!
sheesh: ytou8 sound like the Leftwingers who claim that critics of michael moore were violating his free speech rights - WHEN NO SUCH THING WAS HAPPENING!
Part of free speech is the right of others to be critical of WHAT you say. michale moore's movies was stupid propaganda filled with lies and distorions, but once did any supporter of the GWOT or Bush say it should be taken out of the theaters.
i am critical of yuschenko's decision and have not ever suggested that he doesn't have the right to do what he wants.
get it?!?!?!
as for the cold war: now that it is over the usa does NOT have to use non-democratic states to fend of the ussr - so USA foreign policy is LIBERATED from that need and able to be more of a force for universal human rights. THAT'S A GOOD THING!
sometimes - MANY TIMES - you need allies who are less than savory to defeat an enemy who is even worse!
remember: we were allies of stalin to get hitler.
so get off your high horse.
you make it sound as if you think greece and france helped win the cold war!?!? sheesh. give me a break. that is pure fantasy! only usa deterrence kept the USSR out of western europe. nato without the usa is NOTHING!
you are not well versed in history, or logic.
you are ungrateful.
but that's just my opinion. have a nice day.
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 10, 2005 05:31 PMI second Kirill's point about Aznar - it wasn't the Spaniards reacting out of fear of terror so much as it was a reaction to Aznar trying to score political points by claiming it was an ETA job.
Reliapundit, the archives were opened long ago and there were no plans on the table by the USSR to invade Western Europe. We had invasion plans, though, just in case a threat seemed imminent. However, there never was an imminent threat so no need for us to dust off our plans. Now, I am not going to pretend the Soviet Union was a good thing (it was a nice idea at the beginning but got hijacked by thugs and right wing dictators), but they were not going to attack us or Western Europe. They had enough problems.
Posted by: Kirill Nils Senior at janvier 10, 2005 05:46 PMKirill-
I'm very glad to have you on the blog, and I appreciate your comments. But this has got to be one of the funniest pieces of spin I've read in a long time:
"Now, I am not going to pretend the Soviet Union was a good thing (it was a nice idea at the beginning but got hijacked by thugs and right wing dictators)"
Someone could get dizzy reading that sentence.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 10, 2005 06:51 PMI know, it's sounds strange but it's not spin. Look, the people wanted to throw off the shackles of an extremely repressive dictatorship and build a nation based on equality. Sure, the economics are all wrong but no one knew that at the time. It was a fairly novel idea and done for the right reasons by most of the people involved. However, as things too often go in these parts, the movement was taken over by a bunch of extremists who had no intention of creating communism or socialism. They just wanted the power and used torture and terror to get it.
Posted by: Kirill Nils Senior at janvier 10, 2005 06:56 PMDisco, I also thought Kirill's assessment of the late unlamented USSR was idiosyncratic, but as far as funny pieces of spin go, perhaps you missed Reliapundit's assertion a few posts up that Spain has Franco to thank for its democracy! With democrats like that, who needs dictators? Bash the left all you want, but you won't find many lefties *defending* the historical socialist dictatorships these days.
Posted by: Michael at janvier 10, 2005 09:08 PMMichael - that Franco bequeathed democracy to Spain is not spin; it is a fact. There was no Spanish democratic rebelliuon/revolution or anything.
+++++++
Disco Shaman - you are right about the UTTER inanity of Kiril's USSR comment.
A key aspect of the type if DELUSION it represents is this: the false concept that fascism and communism are OPPOSITES.
In fact Hitler and Stalin were both socialists - Stalin was a Marxist; Hitler was not a Marxist. Mussolini was a socialist too. So the idea that one ideology is on the right and the other on the left is SILLY and WRONG and BAD REASONING.
Look at it this way: under the traditional political spectrum (which has fascism on the right and communism on the left) there is no proper place for anarchism, which is certainly not in the center.
The correct/truthful/accurate political spectrum place both communism and nazism and fascism on the left (BECAUSE ALL ARE STATIST/collectivist/elitist) and then places anarchism on the right and the places mixed polities in the middle (such as the USA on the right of center, and Denmark - for example - left of center).
Since in this light, Hitler and Stalin were evil twins of socialism - an ideology which INEVITABLY is evil and doomed to fail because it MUST DENY human rights.
[ADVICE TO Kiril and his ilk: READ HAYEK's "The Road to Serfdom." (Hayek was the man who informed Thatcherism and Reaganism, and thereby saved the West and the Free World.)
SUMMARY OF HAYEK: "Socialism cannot produe properity because properity is a by-product of liberty. Socialism produces poverty/serfdom - an impovershed economy in which persons are tools of an elite."
Another book for Kiril and his ilk: THE WISDOM OF CROWDS, by James Suroweiki (sic?). He shows how and why the public/the masses are better at assessing value than any group of experts/elite.]
In this light (a Hayekian light), one must agree that communism was always doomed to lead to poverty and tyranny because of its very nature, and not because it was abused by rightwingers.
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 10, 2005 10:31 PMsorry for all the typos.
wrote porperity meant prosperity.
liberty creates prosperity.
there is only one kind of liberty - individual.
people free to make, write, read, buy & sell and do whatever they want to will always produce more at better value than slaves/serfs to any politburo can.
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 10, 2005 10:49 PMSpain. On the "Spanish retreat." I think it is important to recognize that the involvement in Iraq was always unpopular with the Spanish electorate. I think one big lesson is that governments that commit troops in harm's way without consensus can't expect much slack from the people when things turn bad.
Also don't forget that the Spanish government initially blamed ETA. Their defeat is as much a result of their attempt to blame a domestic source (which, if accurate, would have helped them in the election) as of anything else.
And one more point. Turnout was massively higher in Spain in 2004 than in the previous election. In other words, we don't know that many people changed their minds about whom to vote for on account of the bombing. But many, many thousands probably decided to vote on the wave of post-attack patriotic feeling who otherwise would not have.
I should have added that my point about governments committing troops in harms way without political support applies to Ukraine, too, as you (Disco) noted in your posting.
What a shame that some Ukrainians had to die in Iraq on account of their rightful president's inaugration having been delayed.
Posted by: Matt S at janvier 10, 2005 11:44 PMmatt: what a shame anyone dies.
better to die for a high ideal.
as for the popularity if war: it ain't ever really popular. that's why demoicracies are better for a peaceful world.
but sometimes war is necessary - as in the times when one is fighting for liberty and universal rhuman rights and agaunst tyranny.
great leadership rises to the challenge of an isolationist public. sadly, too often this matters not. churchill warned the worlds for a decade about hitler to no avail, eve fdr stood by and watched as hiotler violated clause after clause of the armistice.
so yuschenko's isolationism is not rare. but that has no bearing on its rightness.
ungratefulness and appeasment are all too common.
great leaders are all too rare.
as brave as yuschenko is -as heroic - he falls short in my eyes because of his antiIraq war stance.
BTW: anyone who watched the spanish hearing on atocha would know that the aznar administation was unfairly blamed by spain's left-wingers and left-wing media regarding who they suspected, and how they handled the investigation.
the spanish media handled aznar like the us media handled bush: in an extremely biased way.
bush survived "rathergate;" aznar diod not survive
"atochagate." part of the reason is that it came much closer to the electiuon; another reason os that spoanish bloggers/blogging-networks are not YET as good/developed as american bloggers. as a result, spanish electorate was victimized by left-wing lies abotu aznar/atocha whereas american electorate was NOT victimized by "rathergate."
What do we have here...shouting and name-calling by right-winger who is obsessed with one issue. Who woulda believed it?
Remember what Bush said about his tax cuts early in the first term? He said he had a moral obligation to the people who voted for him to do what he said he would. Since when are tax cuts more of a moral issue than people's sons and grandsons dying in a war that may or may not establish democracy in a country outside of Ukraine's sphere of geopolitical interest?
Reliapundit: please take back this statement: "as brave as yuschenko is -as heroic - he falls short in my eyes because of his antiIraq war stance."
You cannot possibly judge him so harshly on one issue, an issue that (by the way) probably 85% or more of Ukrainians agree with him on.
joe - i take nothing back.
i am not a rightwinger, i am a centrist.
taxes cuts are moral: people should be allowed to keep their own property; property rights are essential to human rights.
the less the state takes the better.
denigrating the ultimate sacrifice a free people can make for the AS YET UN-FREE is sad/pathetic, as is yushcenko's positon on this matter.
free nations - free people have an moral obligation to help people who are tyrannized.
it is a moral obligation that - sadly - has more often than not been sloughed off.
ukrainians owe much of their demcracy to external pressure; therefore - now more than ever ukrainians should rethink their aversion to nation-building/"democracy imposition".
chamberlain was a nice guy; he meant well, and most brits did not want war with hitler - until 1940, which was late in the game. so what yuschenko is dfoing now is not peculiar or unusual; it is all too common, but sad nevertheless.
or do you think irawqis deserved saddam, and desrve jihadofascism!?
i do not. all humanity desrves their innate rights; those of us with them - and with the ability to help those woithout their innate rights have a moral obligation to help them regain their innate rights.
if that makes me a rightwinger, then lincoln and washinton and jefferson and fdr and eleanor roosevelt were rightwing neocons, too!
i'd rather be in their comapny than with chirac and annan and zapoatero and schroeder and kuchma or yuschenko.
if i am a neocon than blair is a neocon.
fooey on that.
all we are are humans who feel solidarity with our fellow humans who are tyrannized.
noe that the cold war is over, we are morw able to deal with all the azwful trannies we has to tolerate or ignore while we kept the evil empire of the ussr at bay.
we will win, too. with or without the ukraine or france or spain or germany.
but it would have been easier and nicer to have has thier help.
BTW: donl;t you realize that low taxes here and in the UK is why there is lower unemployemnt here and in the uk!?!? by half compared to the socialist states france/germany/spain etc.
ireland cut taxes and their economy imporved too.
socialism is the road to serfdom. is has never worked well anywhre at anytime. the less socialist an economy is - the more friendly it is to business - the better it is for workers, and consumers. hig taxes and redistribution of wealth is a one-way tocket to poverty.
liberty and low taxes create abundance and prosperity.
reagan and thatcher were great liberators. bush is a great liberator: from tyranny and taxes.
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 11, 2005 01:47 AMhey y'all: lookit - i think yuschenko is a helluva guy - a heropic figure - a great man.
but not perfect.
on this issue i think yuschenko is as wrong as chirac et al. and everyone else who agrees with them.
go google and read fdr's "four freedoms" speech - or eleanor's "declaration of universal human rights" - they are as neocon-ish as they come.
they call on us - everyone in the Free World to assist those in the un-free world achieve their innate human rights.
when we do less than we can in this regard we fail our brothers and sisters, and demean our high values.
if yushcenko were to annouce some other aid to the GWOT or that he was sending the 1850 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, then i would say he is less ungrateful than if he just withdraws.
as an earlier poster wrote: there are many ways to fight tyranny. not just making tent cities in our own capitols.
BTW: if i were ukrainian, i'd be very worried about any rush into the EU, and the hole EU(SSR) system - to a lot of observers it looks like it might be becoming the next great unrepresentative socialist tyranny. careful....
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 11, 2005 02:00 AMWhat's wrong with a democratic country abiding by the will of the people? Be it France, Germany, or Ukraine? I don't understand why some Americans think the democracies of the world have to march lock step with America where ever we choose to march. Ukraine has enough on it's plate. Ukraine has had enough wars in it's history. Come on people! Give them a break!
Posted by: pekdude at janvier 11, 2005 02:51 AMreliapundit, you fall into the same hole that many right-winger (supposedly anarchist or libertarian) extremists fall into. Your stupid "EUSSR" label combines absurdly the EU (a union of free governments, whose socialdemocratic policies its peoples are free to change whenever they so decide), with the USSR a "socialist" tyranny upheld by force that forbid all dissent.
Like many libertarians you also consider "tax-cuts" to be moral because people have supposedly an innate right to keep their property. At the same time however I'm sure you accept as a necessary evil all the civilian casualties of Iraq. And I'm guessing you also accept as a necessary evil those taxes that the USA or Ukraine would need to support their forces in Iraq. Right?
In socialdemocratic governments, people have also chosen that they can use taxes to help people to healthcare, schools, roads, and so forth. Your argument that "socialism" (mixing socialdemocracy with socialistic tyrannies) is always evil, doesn't mix at all with your support of states using taxpayer money to wage war.
As a sidenote I don't know whether Ukraine has sent conscripts or professional soldiers to Iraq but I wonder: Would you still uphold your belief that Ukrainian troops must remain there if these are conscripts that have been sent?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 11, 2005 04:11 AMAs a sidenote, reliapundit, I didn't object to you criticizing the people of Ukraine for their decision. I objected to your use of gratitude as an argument of why such troops should be sent to another country.
If the Ukrainian people decide to send troops, I'd rather they sent them because they feel that action to be morally *right*, not because of "gratitude".
As long as they don't feel the action to be morally right, your usage of "gratitude" as an argument, seeks to subvert the very idea of the need for moral reasoning before taking such action. "Ignore what you perceive as morality, just go along with us because of gratitude".
"Gratitude" can be used to justify even all sorts of evil actions. That's why I don't like it being used as an argument either in favour or against doing anything.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 11, 2005 04:40 AMUkraine should make it's own decision as to involvement in Iraq, just as the US did. If I were in Yushchenko's position, I wouldn't waste my "political capital" in maintaining a troop presence there. There are much more pressing issues.
Americans should realize that the success of the reforms Yushchenko is attempting to implement is of much greater value to us and the world than the Ukranian troop presence in Iraq would ever be. Anyone who would react to such a move in anger is missing the forest for the trees.
Posted by: rox_publius at janvier 11, 2005 05:05 AMpek: i never said that ukraine should help iraqis because it's what america wants; i said they should do it because it is the right thing to do!
as an example i offered that the ukraine was helped by external international effort, and that ESPECIALLY in light of this FACT ukraine should be helpful to other people - LIKE IRAQIS - who also are struggling to establish their democratic RIGHTS.
and PEK and ARIS - the ungratefulness of the ukraine is GENERAL and not to the USA - it's the sense that especially NOW, after all ukraine went through - (AND ALL THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED IF KUCHMA AND YANLUVYCH HAD TRIED TO USE VIOLENCE) - ukraine should be MORE engaged in other peoples struggles for freedom. Stay in the activist COALITION that's willing to use miltary force, and not retreat. It's as if the ukraine is pulling the ladder up now that they have climbed up to liberty! instead, ukraine should reach back dowen and give other people a hand.
if ukraine/ukrainians doesn't get it now, when will they ever get it!?
sure - as aris wrote - repsecting the will of the people/majority is important in a democrtic republic - but it mustn't always trump everything else; there are transcendant values which trump majoritarian rule --- that's why we have constitutions!
i believe a transcendant value is "universal human rights", and that freer stronger nations should help less free poorer peoples attain their innate rights. international intervention on this count trumps many many things.
the allies should have intervened in germany in 1936. the world should have intervened in rwanda in 1998, and in bosnia before that. we should be doing more in the SUDAN now, and we should be doing more to get rid of MUGABE and liberate zimbabwe, too!
we shouldn't rest until all people everywhere can say "FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I'M FREE AT LAST!"
oh... and that phrase was said most famously by that other neocon/rightwinger/libertarian....
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR!
Think about it.
And God Bless you all - now matter how you feel about ukraine/iraq... NOW.
I have faith that one day you'll all see the light, and come to realize that Reagan and Thatcher and GWBush were all great liberators and great humanitarians like FDR and Eleanor. And Dr. MLK.
g'dnite....
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 11, 2005 06:00 AMMan, (un)Relia, you are a nut. If you truly believe in MLK's words and works, then you will honestly note that MLK believed in non-violence to achieve those ends. It han't worked everywhere but neither has violence. As for Hayek...he made the same mistake that so many on the right have made: he read The Wealth of Nations but forgot to read the precursor to that, which may have been strategic thinking on Smith's part, his pre-Darwinist scribbling "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." The free market is a beautiful thing but needs to be a little less free because men don't have the moral capacity, at least the evidence shows, to do the right thing all the time, hence the Gilded Age travesty which we seem to be repeating currently.
Posted by: Kirill Nils Senior at janvier 11, 2005 08:34 AMInteresting back and forth on the troops issue today and yesterday...
Yesterday, opposition press sites were reporting oppo demands that Kuchma pull the troops out. Partly political? Looks like it. I'm sure that, despite Yushchenko's need to honour his promise, there was no great joy amongst the opposition in adding to Pentagon woes, so they might have been very happy to see the dirty deed done by Kuchma.
The, today we get the news that the US feels that it should be Yushchenko that does it. Is that due to the fact that Kuchma's a lame duck, or as a way of putting Yu's feet to the fire?
Posted by: Castor Borealis at janvier 11, 2005 01:34 PM"The free market is a beautiful thing but needs to be a little less free because men don't have the moral capacity, at least the evidence shows, to do the right thing all the time, hence the Gilded Age travesty which we seem to be repeating currently."
And there we have the difference between an economic conservative and an economic liberal. An economic conservative has the faith in humankind to believe that people won't be starving in the streets if the government is not there to save us. Oddly enough, on social issues it seems to be the other way around, with the social liberal having the faith in humanity to believe that society won't degenerate into nothing but drug-crazed sodomites without the government there to save us.
Posted by: rox_publius at janvier 11, 2005 03:30 PMIt's a nice dream rox but history shows that there are always starving people. How to minimize it? As Arianna Huffington pointed out long ago, she was a conservative believing in the absolute free market and private giving to help the needy. Alas, she found the rich all too willing to shell out for an art house opening but when it came time to help the poor, they shut their wallets tight like a social conservative mind.
Posted by: Kirill Nils Senior at janvier 11, 2005 04:15 PMaris ' re: mlk -
(1) i saw him speak. twice.
saw the "i have a dream speech."
i was there.
(2) if blacks had owned more guns, there'd have been fewer lynchings. violence used in self-defense - or in defense of liberty - is a good thing. non-violence is NOT always good strategy.
let';s say it should be the startegy of FIRST resort, and violence of lest resort.
or, are you a poacifist? is yuschenko? which leads me to
(3) I SUPPOSE THAT IF PUTIN/KUCHMA/YANUKOVYCH HAD USED VIOLENCE AGAINST THE ORANGE PARTY/TENT CITY IN ORDER TO STEAL THE ELECTION YOU'D HAVE ADVOCATED SURRENDER, OR PACIFISM!?!?!?!!??
i for one would NOT have. and in would have advoctaed violent retaliation.
the price of liberty is not only eternal vigilance, it is occassionally BLOOD.
read patrick henry. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" (more here
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html)
ditto zapata: "I would rather die standing than live on my knees!"
two REAL REVOLUTIONARIES. or neocons... whatever.
(4) re: adam smith... HAYEK REPUDIATES ALL OF SMITH. so does history. hayekian economics/social policy WORKS.
read suroweiki's new book THE WISDOM OF CROWDS.
also, consider that the market/marketplace is really just free people doing what they want, buying what they want, selling what they want, making what they want. good things. all efficient.
no elite/politburo/price-council (using YOUR money) can more accurately assign value than the free people of the market (using their own hard earned captial); that is just a fact - an historical fact.
so not only does an economy get all screwed up, but people are LESS FREE.
so why bother with it!?!?
Posted by: reliapundit at janvier 11, 2005 04:24 PM"Alas, she found the rich all too willing to shell out for an art house opening but when it came time to help the poor, they shut their wallets tight like a social conservative mind."
I don't buy it. Check out the charitable donations to Southeast Asia these past two weeks. Why don't people support private charities that way now? Well, they expect the government to do that. I mean, after all, they are confiscating full a third of their paycheck.
Let's look at some high value comparisons: Sandra Bullock, moderately liberal Hollywood type,$1,000,000; George W Bush, slacker who continuously fails upward and loves to preach morality to others, $10,000.
Posted by: Kirill Nils Senior at janvier 11, 2005 10:38 PMto be fair, sandra bullock is pulling down a hell of a lot more coin than GW. And thank God for that. I don't want my president having that kind of money to throw around. If he did, you'd have to ask where it's coming from.
Posted by: rox_publius at janvier 11, 2005 11:54 PM..sometimes you must stand in the dark so others can have the light..its the kind of sacrifice one does for their children.."I hate you"..but you know in the future..
Posted by: Rob_NC at janvier 12, 2005 05:01 AMIt is a mistake for Ukraine to pull their troops out. It was a mistake for Yushchenko to have made that commitment, and even more so due to it's coupling with anti-Americanism.
It will not be forgotten and it will end up hurting them in the long run. It puts more of the burdon on the backs of those coalition members that are staying, and sends the wrong signal to oppenents of this war.
I am happy that Ukraine is free, and that they finally got the leader that they wanted. To me, that is a seperate issue, and the only way I will show my displeasure at their withdrawel from Iraq is to treat their products like I do those of France or Spain. I will not be alone in this action.
Posted by: Defense Guy at janvier 13, 2005 08:42 PM