- Re: 布什的实验成功了 72%的投票率posted on 01/31/2005
- Re: 布什的实验成功了 72%的投票率posted on 01/31/2005
- Re: 布什的实验成功了 72%的投票率posted on 01/31/2005
对于他们来说,春天已经来了。
- Re: 布什的实验成功了 72%的投票率posted on 01/31/2005
- Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率posted on 01/31/2005
zheng ru ni zhi dao de, zai ou zhou zhe li, hen duo ou zhou ren bu xi huan bu shen na yi tao, cong de guo dao dan mai yi zhi dao bing dao, dou shi zhe yang. dan wo you yi ci wen ta men: ru guo you yi tian, yi la ke ye xiang jin tian de han guo, de guo, na hui zen me yang ne?
suo yi zhe shi qing zhen nan ban a. - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率posted on 01/31/2005
统计数字往往很有趣,72% 很高的一个百分比,但是不知道它的denominator 使用的什么数字:是全部有投票权的成年人,还仅仅是那些registered的投票人? 我很想知道这个数字的来龙去脉,不知道有没有人知道? - posted on 02/01/2005
我晕。翻译了一下七同志的拼音:
正如你知道的,再欧洲这里,很多欧洲人不喜欢布什那一套,从德国到丹麦一直到冰岛,都是这样。但我一直(依次?)问他们:如果有一天,伊拉克象今天的韩国,德国,那会怎么样呢?
所以这事情真难办啊。
star-gazer wrote:
统计数字往往很有趣,72% 很高的一个百分比,但是不知道它的denominator 使用的什么数字:是全部有投票权的成年人,还仅仅是那些registered的投票人? 我很想知道这个数字的来龙去脉,不知道有没有人知道?
据我所知,伊拉克全国65%的人为登记选民,其中投票者72%,1000万人以上。 - posted on 02/01/2005
要我说的话,西欧有点婊子样,美国是他们的免费警察。看看希拉克,只盯着空客的订单。话说回来,他自己的日子的确也不好过,法国失业率长期居高不下。
只有哪天艾菲尔塔倒的时候,他们才会反应过来。当然,这一天可能不会来,因为有美国的目标在前。
沈默克 wrote:
我晕。翻译了一下七同志的拼音:
正如你知道的,再欧洲这里,很多欧洲人不喜欢布什那一套,从德国到丹麦一直到冰岛,都是这样。但我一直(依次?)问他们:如果有一天,伊拉克象今天的韩国,德国,那会怎么样呢?
所以这事情真难办啊。
star-gazer wrote:据我所知,伊拉克全国65%的人为登记选民,其中投票者72%,1000万人以上。
统计数字往往很有趣,72% 很高的一个百分比,但是不知道它的denominator 使用的什么数字:是全部有投票权的成年人,还仅仅是那些registered的投票人? 我很想知道这个数字的来龙去脉,不知道有没有人知道? - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率posted on 02/01/2005
所以说,历史还是英雄写的。只是不知布什是个多大的英雄。 - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率posted on 02/02/2005
顶一下
虽然本人乐于破坏,支持战争,禁锢使我充满侵略性
但数据上证明了布什总统起码兑现了一部分豪言壮语.
不算十分,也起码没完全失信.
如果伊拉克人们能享受到昂贵的民主,我相信自由也能很快买到 - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率posted on 02/03/2005
BBB wrote:
要我说的话,西欧有点婊子样,美国是他们的免费警察。看看希拉克,只盯着空客的订单。话说回来,他自己的日子的确也不好过,法国失业率长期居高不下。
只有哪天艾菲尔塔倒的时候,他们才会反应过来。当然,这一天可能不会来,因为有美国的目标在前。
那些傻逼,好了伤疤忘了痛。谁叫它们是“梅毒的老欧洲”呢?……失业率可不是靠和独裁者勾勾搭搭可以消灭的~ - posted on 02/03/2005
知道在这里说点不同的话,有点像举旗“向我开炮“。- 希望我错。
布什的实验成功了-此话对在这是布什的游戏。谈不上谁高尚,谁无耻。这两个词根本就不在政治的词典里。美国的利益所在。反恐既是拉拢民心的工具,又可壮大美国的军火石油工业,又不用他家买单。
谁来买单?美国及有份的欧洲国家的纳税人付首期,伊拉克得分期付款,不知到何时。
西方列强(尤其是美国)那个没有与独裁者勾勾搭搭的历史?想当年老萨和本拉登都是美国扶植起来的,说起来,还有老布什的渊源。正是此一时彼一时也。
眼下,美国不是与巴基斯坦的老穆军政府交情深深么?但愿不是One Night Stand - 反恐好象没有 Sell By Dates (过期日). 向他们输出民主没意义,穷乡僻壤的,要民主作甚么?
法国人一贯是不愿吃亏的(欧盟中农产品补贴最高,国企多多的社会主义),特别是上过美国人在越南的当,丢了好肥的一块殖民地,不过老美也没有打响如意算盘,亏吃的又大又长。
二战后美国帮欧洲重建,用的是发债的办法。法国德国花了二三十年才还清, 英国更惨,一直还到八十年代。老牌殖民国家深谙国际民主输出的游戏规则,自己以前就玩过,不容易上当。
至于被老美盯上的潜在的民主进口国,选择不多,军队占领下,给啥是啥,。因为这是一个弱肉强食,适者生存的世道。
伊拉克的选举,当然好过老萨独裁,但现在的人选,还不是美国人扶持的(所以欧洲人英国人很郁闷,投资回报率比美国低一节,谁愿干)?伊拉克人民勇敢的出去投票,但有几个可供选举的候选人呢?结果不会出人意料的,一定是临时政府的当权者。一个过场而已。
希望伊拉克人民运气好,能碰上个好的,真的能将真正的民主慢慢铺开来,将来分期付款,本金利息上虽然没有发言权,但至少可以希望期限上不会太长,还指望在抽尽石油之前给儿孙留点祖荫呢!
另外,美国的知识分子中间,支持布什的好象很少,接近欧洲的情形。他们中,自由民主,公平平等的思想太浓,而势利眼较少。因为他们知道,一时的得失只是历史瞬间。
即使布什打下伊朗叙利亚(可能性较小),也不会改变我对他的看法。不过我又是谁呢?人微言轻,可忽略不计。不过是想提供一些背景资料而已。
Everything has to be put into the conetxt.
- posted on 02/03/2005
“小”朋友,
没有人会向你“开炮”的。这咖啡馆里的常客,除我以外,大多是学识丰富的各类学者型的人(包括你),他们的历史哲学政治艺术知识都是令人刮目的。
对我这样的不学无术者呢,只为这世界上少了个独裁者而高兴。为伊拉克人民可能建立稳定民主的制度而高兴,为美国人可能为伊拉克人民做了件好事而高兴(虽然是顺便的)。
BTW,我对越南战争的历史(起因和过程等)特别感兴趣。这里是一个大致:
二战结束,越南的日军向英国军队投降。胡志明宣布越南独立。法国人却想重新得到自己的殖民地,派军队重返越南,并在南方建立一个政府。胡志明共产党开始对这个政府开战。美国对法国军队在财力物力上进行大规模支持。但有中国和苏联支持的越共,实力强大,法国因看到事态不好,放弃越南。美国为阻此共产党在越南的胜利,则逐渐派军帮助南方政府,由此,越陷越深。军队最多时,70年代初,达50多万人。
美国人有一切理由反越南战争。而我这个在共产党政府下生活过的人,就为越南人付出了那么多,仍然还受那份罪而叹息。好在越共还没有那么坏。象北韩共党,最近开始老百姓因为留长头发而受到官方舆论的遣责。对比已经创造了世界经济奇迹的南韩,我就为这世界上还有金正日这样的统治者感到难受。
little wrote:
知道在这里说点不同的话,有点像举旗“向我开炮“。- 希望我错。
布什的实验成功了-此话对在这是布什的游戏。谈不上谁高尚,谁无耻。这两个词根本就不在政治的词典里。美国的利益所在。反恐既是拉拢民心的工具,又可壮大美国的军火石油工业,又不用他家买单。
谁来买单?美国及有份的欧洲国家的纳税人付首期,伊拉克得分期付款,不知到何时。
西方列强(尤其是美国)那个没有与独裁者勾勾搭搭的历史?想当年老萨和本拉登都是美国扶植起来的,说起来,还有老布什的渊源。正是此一时彼一时也。
眼下,美国不是与巴基斯坦的老穆军政府交情深深么?但愿不是One Night Stand - 反恐好象没有 Sell By Dates (过期日). 向他们输出民主没意义,穷乡僻壤的,要民主作甚么?
法国人一贯是不愿吃亏的(欧盟中农产品补贴最高,国企多多的社会主义),特别是上过美国人在越南的当,丢了好肥的一块殖民地,不过老美也没有打响如意算盘,亏吃的又大又长。
二战后美国帮欧洲重建,用的是发债的办法。法国德国花了二三十年才还清, 英国更惨,一直还到八十年代。老牌殖民国家深谙国际民主输出的游戏规则,自己以前就玩过,不容易上当。
至于被老美盯上的潜在的民主进口国,选择不多,军队占领下,给啥是啥,。因为这是一个弱肉强食,适者生存的世道。
伊拉克的选举,当然好过老萨独裁,但现在的人选,还不是美国人扶持的(所以欧洲人英国人很郁闷,投资回报率比美国低一节,谁愿干)?伊拉克人民勇敢的出去投票,但有几个可供选举的候选人呢?结果不会出人意料的,一定是临时政府的当权者。一个过场而已。
希望伊拉克人民运气好,能碰上个好的,真的能将真正的民主慢慢铺开来,将来分期付款,本金利息上虽然没有发言权,但至少可以希望期限上不会太长,还指望在抽尽石油之前给儿孙留点祖荫呢!
另外,美国的知识分子中间,支持布什的好象很少,接近欧洲的情形。他们中,自由民主,公平平等的思想太浓,而势利眼较少。因为他们知道,一时的得失只是历史瞬间。
即使布什打下伊朗叙利亚(可能性较小),也不会改变我对他的看法。不过我又是谁呢?人微言轻,可忽略不计。不过是想提供一些背景资料而已。
Everything has to be put into the conetxt.
- Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/03/2005
插一嘴 偶下载滴《火影忍者》又动了 离网吧关门还有一个小时怎么也看完了
各位继续:) - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/03/2005
虽然不喜欢布什,当然还是希望民主自由在伊拉克获得成功。大选至今还令人高兴。
- posted on 02/03/2005
little wrote:
二战后美国帮欧洲重建,用的是发债的办法。法国德国花了二三十年才还清, 英国更惨,一直还到八十年代。老牌殖民国家深谙国际民主输出的游戏规则,自己以前就玩过,不容易上当。
至于被老美盯上的潜在的民主进口国,选择不多,军队占领下,给啥是啥,。因为这是一个弱肉强食,适者生存的世道。
呵呵,俺是才疏学浅,不过知道马歇尔计划绝大部分是无偿援助。蒋政府就是因为被马歇尔们亲共抛弃而战败的。
马歇尔计划——《欧洲复兴计划》的通称。第二次世界大战后美国争夺全球战略的重点—欧洲的扩张计划。1947年6月5日,国务卿G.C.马歇尔在哈佛大学发表演说,首先提出援助欧洲经济复兴的方案,故名。他说。当时欧洲经济濒于崩溃,粮食和燃料等物质极度匮乏,而其需要的进口量远远超过它的支付能力。如果没有大量额外援助,就会面临性质非常严重的经济、社会和政治的危机。他呼吁欧洲国家采取主动,共同制订一项经济复兴计划,美国则用其生产过剩的物资援助欧洲国家。1947年7-9月,英、法、意、奥、比、荷、卢、瑞士、丹、挪、瑞典、葡、希、土、爱尔兰、冰岛16国的代表在巴黎开会,决定接受马歇尔计划(1948年4月,德国西部占领区和的里雅斯特自由区也宣布接受),建立了欧洲经济合作委员会,提出了要求美国在4年内提供援助和贷款224亿美元的总报告。1948年4月3日美国国会通过《对外援助法案》,马歇尔计划正式执行。计划原定期限5年(1948-1952),1951年底,美国宣布提前结束,代之以《共同安全计划》。美国对欧洲拨款共达131.5亿美元,其中赠款占88%,余为贷款。马歇尔计划实施期间,西欧国家的国民生产总值增长25%。马歇尔计划是战后美国对外经济技术援助最成功的计划,它为北大西洋公约组织和欧洲经济共同体的建立奠定了基础,对西欧的联合和经济的恢复起了促进作用…… - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/03/2005
这里说到的马歇尔计划肯定不是全面的。因为记得国内官方资料说马歇尔计划总额达1000亿元。实际支出可能还要多。 - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/03/2005
你错了。“自由民主,公平平等”不是自由派知识分子的专利。
little wrote:
知道在这里说点不同的话,有点像举旗“向我开炮“。- 希望我错。
另外,美国的知识分子中间,支持布什的好象很少,接近欧洲的情形。他们中,自由民主,公平平等的思想太浓,而势利眼较少。因为他们知道,一时的得失只是历史瞬间。
- posted on 02/03/2005
Little:
我认为你对马歇尔计划的评介有偏颇,对于欧洲来说,马歇尔计划是一个战后复苏的强心剂,其贷款有相当一部分是无息或者无偿,而且欧洲国家并没有因此丧失国家根本利益。
那么,我们是否能从纯人道援助的角度来说这一计划的背景呢?也不尽然,这一计划有其战略的目的,那就是,贫困引发的社会动荡有可能导致苏联的共产主义之风西渐,因此,马歇尔计划最终被证明在遏制共产主义方面是有效而人道的。
利比亚的卡扎菲最近在同《时代》杂志记者谈话时,对于美国在他销毁WMD之后没有给予他足够的奖励表示不满,称美国应该给利比亚一个“马歇尔计划”,个性乖张而且桀敖不驯的卡扎菲如此垂涎这一计划,可见其不是个赔本买卖。
而且我去过前东德和西德,是柏林刚倒塌的时候,当时东德人对西德人的羡慕难以言表,东德好姑娘惟恐嫁给东德小伙子,同样优秀的民族在之后数十年的不同体制下所显示的差别不言自明,而且最重要的是两边人尤其是年轻人风格上的巨大区别,一边自由而愉悦,一边忧郁而拘禁,缺乏幽默,一位东德老人在东西德分开时被迫留在东德,战后回西德感到不平,他对本人说过,过去没有自由,现在没有金钱,唯一后悔当时留在东德,没有赶上马歇尔计划引发的经济复苏。
steve - posted on 02/04/2005
谢各位的指点。
马歇尔计划的效果还是不错的,是重建西欧的第一期投资以及后继资金链的主要功臣,尽管是投资加人道的综合行为,也是天经地义。对马歇尔计划的出发点的非议是有点矫枉过正,是对过于偏美观点的反动。
正如Steve (HHHHDU?)兄说的,美不愿坐视共产主义蔓延,私有财产家园尽失,西欧资本主义奄奄一息 - 不但可能丧失贸易伙伴,而且自己也有被吞没的危险,所谓唇亡齿寒。因此,不管政治还是经济,马歇尔计划对欧洲对美国,都是一个双赢的计划,也取得了双赢局面。不同经济体之间的互动,是经济摆脱困境,促进增长的关键。欧美战后的高速增长,是明证。
下文(作者来自美国加州伯克利)第三部分对二战后马歇尔计划有比较详细的分析。本想再找一篇欧洲作者的文章,提供更多的背景,但一时没找到论文型的,不好对比,故放弃。
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Slouch_Present19.html
现在G8国家开会,英国带头鼓动搞援助非洲的新马歇尔计划,从可行性来看,风险较当时的马歇尔计划要大的多,经济基础,人力资源的教育程度,技能,文化,价值观念,社会制度,援助国和被援助国之间的差距有天壤之别,跟当时的美欧不可同日而语。
非洲的贫穷,黑暗,是人性的残酷的展览馆 (新老白人殖民者,黑人独裁者,军政府,连年的战火,众多人口不治的绝症)。难啊。
希望富国真的能找到可行的办法。不过最好不要打仗。
小布什会做些什么?
- Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/04/2005
Africa issue is another issue, we hope some govenments will face to solve it sooner or later, but here, just in logical field, this issue is meaningless to be input, as debating of Bush's policy to Iraq has no any causality path to Africa issue.
- posted on 02/05/2005
sieg wrote:
Africa issue is another issue, we hope some govenments will face to solve it sooner or later, but here, just in logical field, this issue is meaningless to be input, as debating of Bush's policy to Iraq has no any causality path to Africa issue.
It is highly relevant to discuss the lack of adequate U.S. response to issues in Africa in the context of the Bush's foreign policy. By pinpointing the inconsistencies of U.S. policy towards similarly situated countries, the author there was attempting to depict the real motivation disguised behind the veil of spreading democracy and liberty. - posted on 02/05/2005
Your logical path awake me up something: When I was young, I was fortunate involved a debating about a kind-man, who helped some disabled people without payment so long years. Someone around me criticized it, said since so many disabled peoople lived in these world, why did not he help all of them, as he was kind, he should do like that way.
I have to indicate, if kind-man is nobody but Jesus, or Buddha, or some other allmighty gods, then someone like you can criticize or condemn him as above, otherwise such critique is nonsense, because you misplant a allmighty capability into human's two hands.
Tough missions in this world are endless if we can rank them by their signifience, but human's processing is a time-order, it needs array, like a chain, you have to pass through No.i, then you can get No. i+1.
So please consider time-order issues, maybe the knowledge about Markov chain can help you understand my idea much easier.
Rgds.
- posted on 02/05/2005
People criticized America’s Iraq policy not because it largely leaves out those African countries with more pressing social problems, but because the US attacked Iraq mainly to serve its own national interests, contrary to its professed goals of eliminating WMD and bringing freedom and democracy to that country. In other words, neither the inability of America to help all the countries in the world at once nor the fact that it is not so doing is at issue.
The process of prioritizing competing goals, per their "significance", as in your analogy, only highlights the underlying self-interest based considerations behind America's foreign policies. In that process, the decision-making factors about which country receives the top priority and which countries are ranked the lowest are precisely the subject of criticism. If, for example, America gives undue weight to the economic consideration (e.g. the returns and financial benefits from a war) to its "freedom expansion" project and stays away from oil-poor or natural-resources deprived countries which are suffering from human right violations, then it can not argue persuasively that its sole purpose of entering the war with an oil productive country under dictatorship is to promote democracy. In that case, the much promised democracy is only incidental to but not the real purpose the invasion.
Similarly, if the kind man in your story had chosen to help only those who may potentially pay him back in some way, or he had been only selectively kind to the needy from whom he might benefit in the future, people’s question about his motivation would have been warranted.
sieg wrote:
Your logical path awake me up something: When I was young, I was fortunate involved a debating about a kind-man, who helped some disabled people without payment so long years. Someone around me criticized it, said since so many disabled peoople lived in these world, why did not he help all of them, as he was kind, he should do like that way.
I have to indicate, if kind-man is nobody but Jesus, or Buddha, or some other allmighty gods, then someone like you can criticize or condemn him as above, otherwise such critique is nonsense, because you misplant a allmighty capability into human's two hands.
Tough missions in this world are endless if we can rank them by their signifience, but human's processing is a time-order, it needs array, like a chain, you have to pass through No.i, then you can get No. i+1.
So please consider time-order issues, maybe the knowledge about Markov chain can help you understand my idea much easier.
Rgds.
- posted on 02/05/2005
看不懂你们的鸡肠。
但:1、亚洲在地缘政治角度远远比非洲重要。所引起的全球危机的可能性也远比非洲大。2、谁说美国没帮助过非洲?那黑鹰是怎么回事?(当然在“自由派”人士看来这也是入侵)只是克林顿民主党政府太软弱,错过了一个全面消灭非洲独裁者和军阀的机会。3、再重申一遍:美国对伊拉克的军事干涉谈不上侵略。“民族自决”、“主权”那一套破玩意早已过时。谁要说美国是掠夺石油去的麻烦举出证据,否则这套阴谋论的说法还是留着骗孩子的好,要不和摩尔那大胖一起去YY。4、军事干涉别国的正义性在于1、该国人民的苦难处境,该国统治者的不义、暴虐以及对人类的威胁;2、该国人民对此次军事干涉的认受性。以上两点,足以将什么主权等等的国家无政府主义论调扫进历史的垃圾堆。什么叫作诛其君而弔其民?礼失求诸野,美国很好地继承了儒家精粹。
对于凌驾于程序正义之上的暴君来说,是人人得而诛之的,是无须讲什么程序正义的。而且,当今的联合国,根本就不是讲程序正义的地方。塞拉利昂、苏丹之类的傻逼居然可以将美国踢出人权委员会,就知道讲程序正义是正义本身所负担不起的。 - posted on 02/05/2005
haha this round you got point¨
Yes, in my example that kind-man is just kind, as common sense about morality. But if we think much more, we will find he only help the disabled men as his neighbour, ie. near by him, at least not a man in Africa or America. On the other word, he also has his filteration, but principle of that is being easy and convenient to take after somebody.
If we check his principle in deep, then energetic economy appears. why he do that as his principle? Yes, just because he knows if he wants to help somebody, he should also obey economic path, for helping people efficiently.
Efficiency, that is the common key as Bush's government also has.
If Bush's government helped North-Korea in the first round, without the consideration of oil, then it will find USA fall in a big trouble due to such behavoir is lack of efficiency.
As my point, I also believe Bush attack Iraq not just aiming at democracy, democracy is always something like a by-product, but because the by-product is so important, then it is wise to consider it with the main product.
Just like even we understand a kind-man also act under economic path, we still should look him as a kind-man, because we focus on its by-product, not just action motive, then it is reasonable to look Bush's government as a kind-government on its result, though on its motive everyone can give evil description.
The logic of those who critcized that kind-man is based on the motive analysis but not the action result, they also can guess some another motive, for neighbour's relic, for community's honor, and so on.
but even that kind-man with a evil heart and greedy eyes, then so what? The result is some disabled men got help, to them, it's enough, it's all. Of course to someone, they don't feel enough and all, because they can not feel the sense of help getting, just like you and some European.
All of you critsize Bush's government only by your imagination, the fact is the weapon of such imagination can only cope with Bush's government self-debation, but no effection to Iraq's people. Iraq's people maybe know all of you are kind much more than Bush, but the problem is: Kind motive can not push Sadam down.
I think it is meaningless to drag Bush onto super-morality throne, endow him with pure motive and perfect result.
He is a man, not a God, please consider again to judge him as human's moral standand, to human, utilization is better than any morality.
- posted on 02/05/2005
It appears that your logic is just as flawed as America’s Iraq invasion plan.
The chief argument advanced by the US government of going to Iraq was that its former strategic partner in Middle East, Saddam Hussain, was an owner of WMD and a sponsor of terrorism, thus presented a threat to the world and that an invasion was needed to eliminate that threat. Two years and more than 1500 American lives later, in the light and plight of the collapse of his plain fabrications, Bush's position has shifted to "expansion of freedom." To all these many beg to differ. Now you have conceded that economic gain was the main initial consideration and democracy was at best a by-product. This essentially is a position many others are making yet the Government and its supporters are denying. There is not much left to be argued about. Because it is the hypocrisy, it is the pillage and killing in the name of freedom that many are opposing. People are questioning US's true motive. They are also looking at the consequences: many people killed, houses destroyed, and ancient mosques damaged.
Now going back to how our discussion was started. At the issue was the relevance of discussing American inactions in Africa in the context of discovering the real motive behind Iraq invasion. It is self-evident now that such an inquiry is relevant because people suspected--as now you admit and agree with them too--that the economic or state interest was really what motivated the US to start the war in the first place and other outcome, such as a nominal form of democracy, is only secondary and tangential to the war.
With that discussion behind us, there is no need to further waste time on issues such as whether Bush’s profit-driven approach should still be lauded and embraced on a global scale, whether morality can be entirely cast aside when a system (believed to be the best by a group of people) is being imposed upon another group of people, and whether a "noble end", even if present, may fully justify not so noble a means. Those issues are not part of the original relevance discussion.
But it is probably noteworthy to point out that the election, now equated with democracy by many unsophisticated democracy advocates, was described by the media as "the first free election in more than 50 years." The implication is clear. The Iraqis had free elections before. But that did not prevent the rise to power of Saddam Hussein, with the auspice and tutelage of Americans who then felt its national interest could be best served through working with the dictator. How do we know that this time the new western ruler is more sincere about the well beings of the Iraqis and keen on democracy than its predecessor?
- posted on 02/06/2005
My opinion at least is honest, and facing to the realasic world, but not only stopping at perfectism and just try to keep speaker's standing point being innocent.
All of the USA plan to Iraq are common sense, but the debating key point between us is on: How to judge the justice of this war, invasion or liberation?
As your viewpoint, it is absolute no space left to agrue about since hypocritics insist the purity of the war, but now your opposite viewpoint is: If consider its result, then how to evluate its justice?
Yes, I know so many people were killed and houses destroyed, but such logic is as weak as those hypocritics you mocked holding: In second world war, for liberating France, air blooming killed at least 10,000 innocent citizens though Allies had warned them in advance, and tried to avoid some objects such as hospitals. For smash Nazi, heavy bombes blasted Koeln city, this time I saw the historic picture, only main part of Koeln Dom survived, nearly 90% architetures were detroyed. As your logic, then we should say no to Allies war action?
Under the name of Innocence, just like under the name of Freedom, totally belonging to pure moral pigic.
Now together going back to the starting point, we can find we both comprehand the economic motive, but you just stop here and boycott against who neglect the war's background, and then question the conditional international rescue action. and what I concern for, is based on such background and continue to build as: if the result in Iraq is good, then the next step should be where and what? And before of that, we know good result can be found in Japan, Korea, Germany, Taiwan(as a region), but we still have bad examples, mainly in South America, exp., Agantina. So you see, in my logic path, it is just a time-order process and path process, no direct relevence to the quotation of Africa issues you mentioned.
The worried things in your last paragraph are also I, Shen Mo Ke and other people concern for though all of us with different opinions, opptunity is just oppertunity, and democracy can not absolutly promise richness and happiness.
Finally, I have to acclaim, that I still don't know how to judge the justice of this war, because so many theories of political philospy at here knocked, simply to speak, that is still : Negative Liberty vs. Positive Liberty. I think we still have so many things to do in the huge valley between Kant and Berlin. - posted on 02/06/2005
Invasion 是美英等发起伊拉克战争时的自己的用语。他们并不认为“入侵”是一个贬义词。Invasion 是中性的,不是贴标签,所以没有必要那么紧张。至于liberation 解放也不一定就是好事 (查字典,liberation 也有抢掠之意)。接下来会怎样,大家拭目以待。标签不代表什么。
正如Small所说,民主选举不一定能使社会避免独裁者的诞生,50 年前伊拉克的民选我不清楚,但希特勒的纳粹确实是民选产生的。如果有国家处于危难(经济的,如一战后的德国, 或民族的)中,人民心态绝望,盼望救星时,强人政党很容易打开市场,取得权力,最终形成独裁。最终人民要付出惨重的代价。所以为什么人们会警惕。这种怀疑和警惕本身代表了一种制衡的力量,在某种程度上是民主不走上斜路的健康保障之一。
历史上这种事情发生的太多了,所以人们也认识到民主并非是万能良药。民主制度是人类发展至今最好的社会组织形式,但道高一尺,魔高一丈。如何制止魔的产生和得势? 有一个或几个能与执政党势均力敌的在野党,和强大的发出各种不同声音的社会舆论机器,至少可以让我这样的小百姓放心一些。
这样的民主根基,才是真正民主实现的根本条件。中国需要时间来打造这些必要的条件。
而社会的不同声音中,道德良心和逻辑是民众的基本工具。在伊拉克的问题上,在非洲的问题上,民众当然离不开这两个基本工具。
与Small相比,Little 非常业余,对此地一些其他的观点,只能说一声,不要对强人(布什也好,谁也好)太有幻想,拭目以待,看将来会发生什么?
人性的弱点,使社会大小危机的起源。但人性的优点,又给社会带来希望。否则,我们还活着,说着个什么劲?
- Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/06/2005
我们是在猜测吗?想象?近乎想象?翻历史书?思考吗?还是蓄意于辩论?
布什身边的,美国的,伊拉克的参谋们在想些什么?
我想看看续集,谈得太多.这个话题就越不过瘾.
大谈倒霉的伊拉克,倒霉的美国,歹毒的欧洲.想想自己:自己的屁股都还没得及掩. - posted on 02/06/2005
Thanks for little's hint. Sorry for my using that two words in Chinese context surroundings and please comprehend them in Chinese context surroundings, since all of them I should type in Chinese if here I could input Chinese.
Mo Hei:
If we talk more about other events, then we can try use the same logic to restropect ourselves in someday, such as how to judge the evil extent of Chinese communist? How to measure the Chinese public's torments and bearance? Is it possible to permit a nation reach richness but not so democratic just like making Tang's Dinesty reborn here? and if one day some governments under name of freedom, invade or liberate our country, besides defending any invasion from outside like every government calles on its public to act, shall we still have another ideas? Whether or not and to what extent the spirit of westen politic theories is universal to all of the people in the earth?
This time, in Europe, so many big and small events stroked my minds from realastic level, I think I should reorganize my opinion on China, not only view from a human in his nation, but also view from a human in his globe. - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/06/2005
我晕!
上面是我久仰的七格兄?
怎么不把中文打出来啊!外语对我来说很吃力!
大概看懂吧,幸好还有软件.
- posted on 02/07/2005
There is no such thing of western political theories employed by their governments. Politicians only use excuses for their interests, thanks to Small bringing back to our memory the reasons they used for the Iraqi invasion in the first place: it was the accusation of Sadam Hussein’s WMD and the claimed linked between Sadam and Ben Laden. The justification was anti terrorism and protect people in American and other western countries.
When above reasons failed embarrassingly (Allied army spent many months desperately searching the evidence of WMD and the links but couldn’t find anything they wanted), G. W Bush administration skillfully shifted their grounds and used Democracy and liberating Iraqi people as a convenient and less risky excuse for people to buy. And they succeeded in these political tricks. Media has short memories, so do people. It’s sad that people can be fooled like this even in a democratic society like America. What if G W Bush did something terrible? Illusion is dangerous.
I am not sure everybody in this world wants to be a US citizen. I don’t.
As said before, don't expect God will send a saviour to us - we just need to survive by ourselves. Believe it or not, people are making progress, slowly but solidly.
西方政治家并不把所谓政治理论当回事,在其眼中,只有为取得利益而使用的借口。Small 在前面提醒我们开始出兵打伊拉克的理由是:萨达姆拥有大规模杀伤型武器(WMD)且与本拉登有联系,为了美国等的国家安全和反恐,才实行侵略的。
但联军拼命搜查了若干个月,什么证据都没找着,上述理由成了站不住脚的笑话,于是布什政府摇身一变,手中旗帜就变成了打到萨达姆,民主解放伊拉克了,这样既方便,风险小,又管用,人民买这个帐。于是乎,政客的惯用伎俩又成功了。媒体和大众都有易忘的弱点,令人悲哀的是连美国这样的民主社会,也会被政客左右。如果布什政府干了什么坏事,怎么办?幻想是危险的。
我想不是世界上每个人都想成为美国公民的,反正我不想。
从来就没有救世主,只有靠自己。历史的车轮正缓慢而又扎实的前进 - 此言信则有,不信则无。 - posted on 02/07/2005
世上的确没有“救世主”,但象你这样有本事,能“靠自己”的中国人,凭自己的本事到西方,再说“我不想成为美国公民的”人,更少。你知道如今多少没有本事的人仍然在偷渡?多少有权位的人在靠特权将中国的财富转移到美国?
美国的媒体上,每天都有批评美国政府,社会问题的东西。自己想方设法跑到西方,生活在民主社会,而批评美国西方政府的人,实在cheap。
想想那些生活在独裁统治下,冒着坐牢的风险,批评反抗独裁统治的同胞,真的对那种人不耻。
little wrote:
西方政治家并不把所谓政治理论当回事,在其眼中,只有为取得利益而使用的借口。Small 在前面提醒我们开始出兵打伊拉克的理由是:萨达姆拥有大规模杀伤型武器(WMD)且与本拉登有联系,为了美国等的国家安全和反恐,才实行侵略的。
但联军拼命搜查了若干个月,什么证据都没找着,上述理由成了站不住脚的笑话,于是布什政府摇身一变,手中旗帜就变成了打到萨达姆,民主解放伊拉克了,这样既方便,风险小,又管用,人民买这个帐。于是乎,政客的惯用伎俩又成功了。媒体和大众都有易忘的弱点,令人悲哀的是连美国这样的民主社会,也会被政客左右。如果布什政府干了什么坏事,怎么办?幻想是危险的。
我想不是世界上每个人都想成为美国公民的,反正我不想。
从来就没有救世主,只有靠自己。历史的车轮正缓慢而又扎实的前进 - 此言信则有,不信则无。 - posted on 02/07/2005
BBB wrote:
世上的确没有“救世主”,但象你这样有本事,能“靠自己”的中国人,凭自己>>的本事到西方,再说“我不想成为美国公民的”人,更少。你知道如今多少没有>本事的人仍然在偷渡?多少有权位的人在靠特权将中国的财富转移到美国?
美国能为这些贪官提供不义之财的藏身所,成为中国“有权位的人”的“救世主”,不正说明了民主社会也不是理想社会么?
美国的媒体上,每天都有批评美国政府,社会问题的东西。自己想方设法跑到西方,生活在民主社会,而批评美国西方政府的人,实在cheap。
按照这种逻辑,好象只有美国人自己能批评自己的政府?中国人即使来了美国,也不能具有民主社会每个公民的权力与资格,对美国政府进行非议?
这种人为的、凭好恶来确实“哪种人能说哪种话”“哪种人不应说哪些话”,正是共产党政府的的特征之一。
每个社会及其问题都不是绝对黑白的。有的人认为中国社会无其长,美国社会无其短。所以在美国的华人就不应该批评美国而应否定母国的一切。这种不正确的逻辑及缺乏理性支撑的观点对目前问题的讨论是没有意义的。
想想那些生活在独裁统治下,冒着坐牢的风险,批评反抗独裁统治的同胞,真的对那种人不耻。
说张三“CHEAP”,李四“不耻”,其方法是同从前对某人的观点要“批倒批臭”同出一辙,即用个人的情绪来代替客观分析。它有热却没有光。
little wrote:
西方政治家并不把所谓政治理论当回事,在其眼中,只有为取得利益而使用的借口。Small 在前面提醒我们开始出兵打伊拉克的理由是:萨达姆拥有大规模杀伤型武器(WMD)且与本拉登有联系,为了美国等的国家安全和反恐,才实行侵略的。
但联军拼命搜查了若干个月,什么证据都没找着,上述理由成了站不住脚的笑话,于是布什政府摇身一变,手中旗帜就变成了打到萨达姆,民主解放伊拉克了,这样既方便,风险小,又管用,人民买这个帐。于是乎,政客的惯用伎俩又成功了。媒体和大众都有易忘的弱点,令人悲哀的是连美国这样的民主社会,也会被政客左右。如果布什政府干了什么坏事,怎么办?幻想是危险的。
我想不是世界上每个人都想成为美国公民的,反正我不想。
从来就没有救世主,只有靠自己。历史的车轮正缓慢而又扎实的前进 - 此言信则有,不信则无。 - posted on 02/07/2005
这样以己之心,度人之腹的思路,令人失望。我所指的自己,是指人民自己,而不是我个人。个人是渺小的,早就说过。况且千方百计出来的人多的是,有什么可指责的?到了西方社会,也没必要对其感激涕零,大家劳资双方,公平交易。我也希望西方的民主,我的同胞也能享有。只是过激的言论,反而带来反效果 - 太多的先例。
同时,西方的局限,也希望国人看的清楚。
对有些莫名其妙的人身攻击,本不想说什么,本来也不是想证明自己比别人高明厉害,来到这里发发议论,是因为有外来的人不分青红皂白地攻击玛雅咖啡的客者都是无病呻吟的无聊文人,对赵紫阳的故去不闻不问。而我却是在那篇攻击的帖子之前就在咖啡馆里为他致哀过的。因此才会对那种无故乱打棍子的人,看不过眼说两句,结果引来这么多的是非。
本来没有必要在此证明自己道德上的清白,匿名讨论,讲的是民主自由的气氛,才有真实的观点。不过,言论自由,我是保守改良派,却不是颂歌派。我不介意亮出不成熟的观点,也欢迎对我的观点的批评,却反感红卫兵造反派式的不讲理,骂大街。骂,是解气,但不解决问题。理性和放炮,我偏向前者。
希望是以上误解。政治上,我只是一介旁观者,经济上,我对国内国企改制民企发展的观察参与也有若干年,之所以会发点议论,讲到历史车轮的滚动,是因为亲眼所见所闻,才有对中国政改和民主进程的一点信心。黑暗面也看的多了,有些是社会悲剧(如盘剥廉价劳工,如爱滋村),有些是个人悲剧(如偷渡)。时代潮流,泥沙俱下,水至清而无鱼,反贪污腐败也要实力。骂中国政府也好,美国政府也好,都没用。得有实力。
中国也不是铁板一块。这次赵紫阳告别,广东省委包专机送他的老部下任仲夷等二十余人往北京吊唁,就说明了这一点。
突然想起MAYA很在意错别字,觉得在理,我是一再小心,也不能幸免。BBB上文中的最后一个词,想来应是“不齿”? :)
好了,为什么要争下去呢? 不要内耗了。。。
- posted on 02/07/2005
当人们在谈论“中国民主”问题的时候,总有从中国到西方的一些人就给你谈论美国西方民主多么的糟糕,虚伪,等等。在这个时候,我就喜欢骂这些人,如果我上面的帖子是在“骂”的话。
那些人就是缺骂。我会继续骂。对不起!
“有热却没有光”,比那种自以为是,故作深沉,却无视中国社会的基本现实,话语缺少基本逻辑要强得多。
CCC wrote:
BBB wrote:美国能为这些贪官提供不义之财的藏身所,成为中国“有权位的人”的“救世主”,不正说明了民主社会也不是理想社会么?
世上的确没有“救世主”,但象你这样有本事,能“靠自己”的中国人,凭自己>>的本事到西方,再说“我不想成为美国公民的”人,更少。你知道如今多少没有>本事的人仍然在偷渡?多少有权位的人在靠特权将中国的财富转移到美国?
美国的媒体上,每天都有批评美国政府,社会问题的东西。自己想方设法跑到西方,生活在民主社会,而批评美国西方政府的人,实在cheap。按照这种逻辑,好象只有美国人自己能批评自己的政府?中国人即使来了美国,也不能具有民主社会每个公民的权力与资格,对美国政府进行非议?
这种人为的、凭好恶来确实“哪种人能说哪种话”“哪种人不应说哪些话”,正是共产党政府的的特征之一。
每个社会及其问题都不是绝对黑白的。有的人认为中国社会无其长,美国社会无其短。所以在美国的华人就不应该批评美国而应否定母国的一切。这种不正确的逻辑及缺乏理性支撑的观点对目前问题的讨论是没有意义的。
想想那些生活在独裁统治下,冒着坐牢的风险,批评反抗独裁统治的同胞,真的对那种人不耻。说张三“CHEAP”,李四“不耻”,其方法是同从前对某人的观点要“批倒批臭”同出一辙,即用个人的情绪来代替客观分析。它有热却没有光。
- Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/07/2005
我的错别字不少,羞愧!多谢指出!
little wrote:
突然想起MAYA很在意错别字,觉得在理,我是一再小心,也不能幸免。BBB上文中的最后一个词,想来应是“不齿”? :)
好了,为什么要争下去呢? 不要内耗了。。。
- posted on 02/07/2005
little wrote:
There is no such thing of western political theories employed by their governments. Politicians only use excuses for their interests, thanks to Small bringing back to our memory the reasons they used for the Iraqi invasion in the first place: it was the accusation of Sadam Hussein’s WMD and the claimed linked between Sadam and Ben Laden. The justification was anti terrorism and protect people in American and other western countries.
When above reasons failed embarrassingly (Allied army spent many months desperately searching the evidence of WMD and the links but couldn’t find anything they wanted), G. W Bush administration skillfully shifted their grounds and used Democracy and liberating Iraqi people as a convenient and less risky excuse for people to buy. And they succeeded in these political tricks. Media has short memories, so do people. It’s sad that people can be fooled like this even in a democratic society like America. What if G W Bush did something terrible? Illusion is dangerous.
I am not sure everybody in this world wants to be a US citizen. I don’t.
As said before, don't expect God will send a saviour to us - we just need to survive by ourselves. Believe it or not, people are making progress, slowly but solidly.
西方政治家并不把所谓政治理论当回事,在其眼中,只有为取得利益而使用的借口。Small 在前面提醒我们开始出兵打伊拉克的理由是:萨达姆拥有大规模杀伤型武器(WMD)且与本拉登有联系,为了美国等的国家安全和反恐,才实行侵略的。
但联军拼命搜查了若干个月,什么证据都没找着,上述理由成了站不住脚的笑话,于是布什政府摇身一变,手中旗帜就变成了打到萨达姆,民主解放伊拉克了,这样既方便,风险小,又管用,人民买这个帐。于是乎,政客的惯用伎俩又成功了。媒体和大众都有易忘的弱点,令人悲哀的是连美国这样的民主社会,也会被政客左右。如果布什政府干了什么坏事,怎么办?幻想是危险的。
我想不是世界上每个人都想成为美国公民的,反正我不想。
从来就没有救世主,只有靠自己。历史的车轮正缓慢而又扎实的前进 - 此言信则有,不信则无。
一、“上述理由成了站不住脚的笑话”、“摇身一变”等等,你可以翻翻我和七格曾讨论过的帖子,以及看看布什及美国官方在出兵前后的所有公开讲话,就知道这种指责是无聊的,只攻一点不计其余的。再看看联合国对伊拉克的安理会决议案,OK?
二、“我想不是世界上每个人都想成为美国公民”,这叫诛心之论。潜台词就是指责同情支持美国的就是收了美金、想成为美国公民云云,与国内BBS左愤们动辄汉奸论相近。上了一定级别的讨论中不适宜出现这种诛心之论。所以我一直克制着不想指出某些朋友身在美国却对中国政治现实默送秋波、神为之许的表现——既然如此热爱吾国,干脆就别出去,或者立刻回归也来得及。
三、一个国家的政治、社会变化,总是外因与内因相结合。特别是一体化时代,奋发图强自力更生云云,毛式民族主义话语而已,过时了。照这种论调,你就不该鼓励援助非洲——让黑鬼们靠自己吧!为什么要白胖干涉内政呢?奇哉怪也!~ - Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/08/2005
你真是我的好孩子,农民的好后代。
不过干革命不能光有嗓子,还要有脑子。不能遇事只知扯着喉咙嚷,却不会用头想。
BBB wrote:
当人们在谈论“中国民主”问题的时候,总有从中国到西方的一些人就给你谈论美国西方民主多么的糟糕,虚伪,等等。在这个时候,我就喜欢骂这些人,如果我上面的帖子是在“骂”的话。
那些人就是缺骂。我会继续骂。对不起!
- Re: 布什的实验成功了――72%的投票率 - 又能说明什么???posted on 02/08/2005
我是农民的后代。
你不要自以为是,你以为自己有脑子?连自己的真实观点都不敢清清楚楚地表达,还觉得自己深沉。笑话!
大年三十,不想在这里制造不和谐。
上面各位大家过年好。
毛主席 wrote:
你真是我的好孩子,农民的好后代。
不过干革命不能光有嗓子,还要有脑子。不能遇事只知扯着喉咙嚷,却不会用头想。
- Re: 然后再煮一下,消消毒!posted on 02/08/2005
啥主席,恶心! - Re: 然后再煮一下,消消毒!posted on 02/08/2005
哇哈哈
大过年好热闹~
我也来放鞭炮~
- Re: 然后再煮一下,消消毒!posted on 02/08/2005
好主意,热血沸腾之后,喝杯茶,吃点菜,过个好年。
各位保存实力,养精蓄锐,鸡年发大财(才),到时有钱出钱,有才出才,大家才有好光景。
到时希望有一天国内议会里会有这样辩论的形式(但不想见到台湾式的打闹场面)。当然辩论的内容希望更实际,更贴近要害,更解决问题。这样的难题,留给政治家吧。有合适的政治家,我会支持的。
另外,建议不要臆测咖啡客谁住在那里,民主社区尊重隐私,这样有利于畅所欲言。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
- 沈默克
- #1 沈默克
- #2 沈默克
- #3 沈默克
- #4 沈默克
- #5 Sieg
- #6 star-gazer
- #7 沈默克
- #8 BBB
- #9 chloe
- #10 末黑
- #11 沈默克
- #12 little
- #13 BBB
- #14 离朱
- #15 thesunlover
- #16 沈默克
- #17 沈默克
- #18 chloe
- #19 HHHDDu
- #20 little
- #21 sieg
- #22 Small
- #23 sieg
- #24 Small
- #25 沈默克
- #26 sieg
- #27 Small
- #28 sieg
- #29 little
- #30 末黑
- #31 sieg
- #32 末黑
- #33 little
- #34 BBB
- #35 CCC
- #36 little
- #37 BBB
- #38 BBB
- #39 沈默克
- #40 毛主席
- #41 BBB
- #42 先脱毛吧!
- #43 末黑
- #44 little
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation