On Power » « Argument Clinic: Some Terminology

Aleppo

Allepo, before and during “regime change.”

Aleppo

Aleppo (source, Al Masdar News)

 

Aleppo

Aleppo (source, New York Times)

I wonder if even the rubble will be standing after “Regime Change” has been completed.

On Power » « Argument Clinic: Some Terminology

Comments

  2. says

    Pierce R. Butler@#1:
    Pls fwd to Gary Johnson in Cluefree, New Mexico.

    I wish. I suspect that they’re getting inundated with corrections already and my little jab won’t matter much.

    The thing about this that bothers me is that the US media and government fawn over these power-mad totalitarians who talk about “regime change” like it’s a) their business b) something nice and easy and clean. It’s not: it’s the worst kind of revolution – it’s revolution without a clear political mandate. If there was a plurality of Syrians who wanted regime change, they would have probably done it by now. Going around trying to trigger revolutions for people isn’t nice. We wouldn’t tolerate it for a second if someone started talking about “regime changing” the US because it’s such a corporate oligarchy and maybe we need to blow up a few leaders with killer drones to balance the playing field.

  4. Pierce R. Butler says

    Marcus Ranum @ # 2: … the US media and government fawn over these power-mad totalitarians who talk about “regime change” …

    I somehow get along without much exposure to corporate media, but had the impression that particular euphemism went out with Bush/Cheney. They really haven’t come up with a new lie yet?

    If there was a plurality of Syrians who wanted regime change, they would have probably done it by now.

    Only if they were a large plurality, and agreed on a replacement regime that would not provoke some other significant fraction into resistance-unto-death. (If you have, say, 10 factions – 8 w/ 10% of the population apiece, 1 w/ 9%, & 1 w/ 11% – that last group would technically constitute a plurality, but has damn little chance of imposing its desires on the other 89%.)

    … maybe we need to blow up a few leaders with killer drones to balance the playing field.

    Tactically possible, perhaps, but strategically ineffective. Zap some fortunes with massive inheritance taxes, enact and enforce serious anti-trust laws, hobble the speculators with financial-transaction fees, put the take into infrastructure-jobs and education programs – then it may at least be possible to see both ends of the field from the middle.

  6. says

    Pierce R. Butler@#4:
    Only if they were a large plurality, and agreed on a replacement regime that would not provoke some other significant fraction into resistance-unto-death.

    Yup, divide and conquer: it just works.

  7. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Tactically possible, perhaps, but strategically ineffective. Zap some fortunes with massive inheritance taxes, enact and enforce serious anti-trust laws, hobble the speculators with financial-transaction fees, put the take into infrastructure-jobs and education programs – then it may at least be possible to see both ends of the field from the middle.

    <3
    Please this.

  8. says

    EnlightenmentLiberal@#7:
    I have weird ideas about that topic; I’m sure they wouldn’t work – but dealing with inheritable wealth is a huge piece of the problem.

Trackbacks