Welcome To The Club, Bandwagoneers

  •  January 31, 2005

Patrick Ruffini:

Joe Trippi, architect of Howard Dean’s antiwar strategy, was just on MSNBC lauding the Iraqi citizen journalists who brought the birth of democracy in their land onto our computer screens. The United Nations is running Blogads on InstaPundit and other major blogs stating “No one will ever again get 100% of the vote. Free elections in Iraq. The U.N. is there.”
To all who have spontaneously decided to join the cause of Iraqi democracy in the space of the last twenty four hours, welcome! Take your coat off and stay a while.
The polls have just closed, but the ankle-biters are already chomping down a lot of crow. Of particular interest is that U.N. ad — No one will ever again get 100% of the vote? Has Fidel suddenly been declared persona non grata at Turtle Bay? Can this be taken as a brand new U.N. policy to opposing dictatorially-rigged elections everywhere, all the time?

One can hope, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
This bandwagon jumping won’t be a long lived or widespread trend. Most on the left will choose to ignore or downplay the happy news of today, choosing instead to get it behind them as quickly as possible.

Tags:


«
»
  • Jadegold
  • Joseph

    Jadegold, you crack me up =)

  • http://Array Josh

    They did it, and without a single bit of help from demoncrats and liberals here.

  • Joshua

    An appropriate headline for tomorrow's papers….."Iraq election a massive success, much to the chagrin of Al-Qaeda, American liberals."

  • Mark

    "Can this be taken as a brand new U.N. policy to opposing dictatorially-rigged elections everywhere, all the time?"

    A) When has the UN ever supported rigged elections?

    B) When has it ever not condemned them?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    By "opposing" Mark we mean "actually taking direct, physical action." Not just talking about it.

  • Mark

    Hmm.

    The trouble is that the UN, quite properly, requires some degree of consensus if it is going to take action. That's what is! An organisation designed to foment consensus and harmony. This is clearly a good thing.

    Now, obviously, there is a downside – there have been, and will be, situations where the overwhelming majority opinion is to take action, and yet the UN is frustrated by the objections of just one or two countries. Clearly a bad thing.

    In my opinion the structure of the security council needs to be refined – we need to seriously consider majority voting for a start, as well as adding some new members to it. That means that action will be taken far more often that it is now.

    Unfortunately, such a restructuring would open the door to the Security Council ultimately deciding to pursue courses of action that the United States might not be (or might not have been) quite so happy with.

    A few examples from history that I can think of –

    1) Immediate UN military action against the Indonesian junta's invasion of East Timor in December 1975. This was an action that was approved by the United States; it is therefore hard to imagine it going along with a UN policy to reverse the invasion.

    2) Immediate UN military action against the Pakistani invasion of Bangladesh in March 1971. Ditto for the above.

    I could name at least three other examples that match the two above in substance.

    My point is that it is all very well criticising the UN for inaction – but it is a little hypocritical to do so if you are not prepared to countenance a majority voting system in which, on occasion, the US (such is the nature of global politics) might be outvoted.

    Would you be prepared to accept such a majority voting system? If not, then I think your dismissal of the UN as a 'talking shop' rings a little hollow.

  • likwidshoe

    Mark says, "The trouble is that the UN, quite properly, requires some degree of consensus if it is going to take action. That’s what is! An organisation designed to foment consensus and harmony. This is clearly a good thing."

    It's not clearly a good thing when one considers the fact that dictators are given equal voice with democracies. The UN is blind when it comes to morality. For example, there can be no "consensus and harmony" when Syria sits at the head of the Human Rights Commission.

  • Jadegold

    Dictatorships and democracies are subjective terms. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

    Case in point, Pakistan. We're on just peachy terms with Pakistan. Yet, it's a military dictatorship which has engaged in terrorism a number of times; it has also been the world's leader in proliferating nuclear weapon technology.

  • likwidshoe

    Dictatorships and democracies are subjective terms.

    No they're not. They have very different definitions and are very different forms of government.

    I should have added representative republics into the mix. What we often erroneously call "democracy" is often a representative republic (like the U.S.).

    What are you doing talking to me anyway? You're rude. You're crude. And you make no sense 90% of the time.

  • Jadegold

    "Matters not. Democracy is simply rule by people. That doesn’t always equal freedom or in the case of your example, religious freedom."

    Problem for you..technically, Jews are a minority in Israel.

  • likwidshoe

    Problem for you..technically, Jews are a minority in Israel.

    Huh. Didn't know that about 55% was technically a minority.

  • Jadegold

    "Huh. Didn’t know that about 55% was technically a minority."

    There's plenty you don't know. I said 'technically' because Israel has gamed the system WRT citizenship. For example, if I'm a Jew who has never set foot in Israel, I can emigrate there and immediately become a citizen. Yet, if I'm a non-Jew who has lived in Israel my entire life and my family has resided there for the past 200 years–I can be denied citizenship.

  • likwidshoe

    Yet, if I’m a non-Jew who has lived in Israel my entire life and my family has resided there for the past 200 yearsâ€"I can be denied citizenship.

    I was counting non-citizens. If you only want citizens it's closer to 80% Jewish. So again, I didn't know that 55% was technically a minority.

  • Jadegold

    "No they’re not. "

    Yes, they are. For example, Israel. Is it a democracy? Some people say 'yes.'

    But how many democracies forbid people who aren't a certain faith to serve in elected offices or to own property?

    Pakistan? India?

  • likwidshoe

    For example, Israel. Is it a democracy?

    Israel is a socialist democracy.

    But how many democracies forbid people who aren’t a certain faith to serve in elected offices or to own property?

    Matters not. Democracy is simply rule by people. That doesn't always equal freedom or in the case of your example, religious freedom.

  • Seth Yantiss

    Mark,

    You said

    "Can this be taken as a brand new U.N. policy to opposing dictatorially-rigged elections everywhere, all the time?"

    A) When has the UN ever supported rigged elections?

    B) When has it ever not condemned them?

    Saddam was the "legitimate ruler" of Iraq based upon rigged elections… The UN recognized him. Venezuela would be another case of the UN (and most other Governments) validating a corrupt "election". There are plenty more…

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development