Relevant girl tied up…

I never said it was the same. Try following my logic. From what I can tell of *your* logic, it’s that when the military takes power, it’s always wrong. OK, but would it have been wrong if it had been von Stauffenberg *succeeding* in his attempt to assassinate the duly-elected Adolf Hitler?

OK, whatever. I give up. (He applies the lobotomy instruments to his own forehead.)

Ah. Feel much better now.

Democracy: good. Always. Everywhere.

Military: bad. Always. Everywhere.

Life simple now. Michael happy. Michael know what to feel. Michael listen for word. Word make Michael feel good? Then thing good. Word make Michael feel bad? Then thing bad. Simple Don’t think. Why? Think hard, just get tired.

Need more time I don’t have for proof reads I guess.

Your ‘democratic principle’ only makes sense MB if a democracy is what is at risk to begin with.

Otherwise, your ‘universal democratic priciple’ gets into clear trouble when it forbids support for military coups against long term tyrants, like im ung ‘ill’ and Saddam and Sons with no relief for the people in site, unless there is some indication the coup would lead to a democracy.

You seem willing to throw the baby(the people) out with the bathwater(military coups) in order to preserve some sort of absolute democratic principle, even when the people are suffering, with no chance in hell of a revolution do to the entrenched brutality of the dictator, with no chance of democracy by revolution, and even if the coup is against a ruthless dictator and not a democracy elected elected leader.

Sorry, it just doesn’t work. Too ridgid.

MT, your powers of analogy drawing are flagging seriously. The United States is a product of a revolution against a colonial power that did not extend democracy to its colonies and oppressed them in other ways. Taxation without representation, all that sort of thing we read about in the textbooks, or is that history wrong? As I said earlier, a military coup is not the same as a popular revolution. Once again, give us all a break.

Is there such a Diana Johnstone? Fill me in then. The one I’m thinking about never denied that there were massacres in Srebrenica, and has only taken exception to how scale and culpability were prejudged.

As for my “head being in the clouds”, just about every military coup has been against a regime that had already gained the cooperation of the military, only to see military support waver. I referred to a “cabal of generals”, not to all of them. The military is seldom a politically unified entity in any country, much less in ours and its political allegiances can shift.

Your position seems to be that military coups are simply wrong, period. To see them as being the best route in a given situation only makes me a moral relativist (or “situationist”) if there is something fundamentally immoral about taking power by military means. However, If I remember correctly, the United States is a product of taking power by military means from Britain, which was at the time a significantly democratic parliamentary regime. Approximately one-third of American colonials were opposed to it, and another one-third were on the fence. So independence faction didn’t even have unequivocal majority support. I guess this would make President George Washington something like a junta chief.

The Progressives, like La Follette, TR and Hiram Johnson , were middle class reformers who wanted “Good Government” and an end to the domination of politicals by “Special Interests”.

Look at the difference in programs:

Populists: Public ownership of utilities, Cheap money, labor laws favoring workers and controls on the railroad’s ability to charge whatever the traffic could bear.

Progressives: Anti-Trust Laws, Pure Food and Drug Act, Federal Reserve Act, Direct Election of Senators and Political Primaries, Referendum, initiative and recall and non-partisan local elections.

See the difference. Dennis Kuchinich is a Populist. Ralph Nader is a Progressive.

But was Trudeau right? I don’t think so. My uncle got his ass kickedat a demo during that time. But perhaps its our nationalism, but both of us forgave Trudeau. Perhaps we’re wrong…I don’t know. I don’t know what else a responsible leader would do (and I’m shocked at how much I agree with you that I seem to sound like how Israel apologists sound.)

Huh? You’re one of the few Canadian leftist I’ve ever encountered who actually defends the war measures act, which, it seems, to me involved flagrant trampling on human rights , the suspension of civil liberties, especially in Quebec and the state targetting of progressive left movements. It seems to me that these are the exact same “anti terrorism” measures, you rightly comdemn, when used the Israeli state. Canadian nationalism is strange

Michael Balter,

Costa Rica in 1949. Then they did something even smarter: they abolished their military.

Well, if a military coup overthrew a dictatorship and then handed power to the people and let them practice democracy, that might be an exception that still upholds the democratic principles I am advocating. I can’t think of any examples of this ever happening offhand, but that might just be because it is late where I am. Usually dictatorships or authoritarian governments are overthrown by revolutions instead, which may or may not go on to allow democracy.

I believe MB would agree a democracy makes the difference.

Mavis, I agree with your bottom line here but not on situationist grounds and not on absolutist grounds either. There is a difference between the types of interventions you are talking about, say in Darfur or Rwanda or Bosnia, which can be justified in my opinion on the principle of humanitarian action and saving human lives, and a military coup which leads inevitably to a military dictatorship either short or long term–usually long. I based my opposition to military coups on the principle of democracy and that there is never any justification to suspend it. That’s also why I am against Bush administration policies, by the way. So my positions are neither absolutist nor situationist in one case or the other but based on a particular principle in both cases. I do not agree that standing on principle makes one an absolutist, although some might think that this is a matter of semantics.

Jcummings has agreed that he may well have been wrong in his initial reaction to the Thai coup. It is honest of him to admit this, and my purpose is to point out what led him astray. In my view, it was his assumption that a military coup can be a good thing, whereas I assumed the opposite. Note how quickly this particular military coup has banned all political activity, something easy to predict if one sees that coups are by their nature antidemocratic.