problem, officer? wrote:1. I don't call HAMAS a terrorist organisation.
Well this is at odds with both the US and European definition of the word. Mine too. Is this a definition of terms issue?
They have been voted into power. As such they are now a government.
Seems you have set up a false dichtomy here? I specifically said that they are terrorists that have been elected.
2. It is easy to tell you're thinking of Left/Right in American terms
English is defined by common usage. The left/right economic split is the most common one.
Europeans have a different take on what is Left and what is Right.
So the Christian Democrats in Germany are called what, then? And the Tories in the UK are what?
Similarly for the Palestinians. You may not recognize it easily, because they are in such a drastically different state of affairs, but I assure you that there is *always* a Left and Right in any system, no exceptions at any time.
Surely under Saddam there was only one. God only knows whether you call it left or right though.
3. Disputing your observation of what currently exists. I mean, a country could go to war, murder lots of people in the fashion of the Nazis, this doesn't necessarily mean that democracy stopped existing.
Sure. That's my EXACT CONCERN over Egypt. Are we talking cross-purposes? The reason I want to debate this with sensible people (ie people who aren't going to claim that everything's controlled by the evil Dick Cheney ordering up 9/11s) is because I wanted to say I did my best to prevent a Nazi Egypt, when it was a very real possibility. When I see 8 million Copt refugees unable to find asylum anywhere in the world, I'll at least know that culpability is shared.
It's more unlikely under a democracy, but it's certainly too far to go to think that it's impossible to occur under a democracy. It's not a cure for all mankind’s ills.
That's my exact sentiments!!!
Note. I'm not anti-Israel, but you have to notice that blocking trade into ports isn't exactly a free market principal.
I completely disagree with this. They merely want to inspect the goods for weapons. The goods can flow freely and are no barrier to Gazan capitalism. Do you dispute this? We might want to move this debate if you wish to now discuss Gazan economics. Can you check the existing forums and tell me if there should be another one? I only had a vague idea of what forums should exist.
They are unwilling to give autonomy
I totally disagree with this. They exactly have autonomy. There's not even any Israeli troops in there to do anything else. Hell - they can get goods in via Egypt too. They have so much autonomy that they can freely elect Israel's sworn enemies into power!!!
and restrict economic freedoms of the people in Gaza.
Totally disagree. The problems in Gaza have nothing to do with lack of economic freedom.
From my point of view, either trade crosses borders, or soldiers do, it's literally that simple.
I don't understand this - you would rather what soldiers cross the border? In which direction? Or in general? ie anywhere that capitalism doesn't exist, there should be an invasion?
First economic freedom, then political freedom, in that order.
If that is a precondition to get your support for political freedom, I have no problem with rolling over dictators (militarily) with a promise to install capitalism as part of the deal, since that is my end goal too. So long as we don't end up with a worse situation (long term) than pre-invasion, I'm in. I wouldn't have thought it was strategic to be forcing capitalism on anyone though. There's very little in the way of ideological challenge to that, so people will naturally adopt it anyway. The few that don't adopt it can serve as constant reminders of the hellish alternatives.