Being that I lived in Europe for a number of years as well as work for a company headquartered out of Amsterdam and worked out of Rotterdam for quite a while I'd guess my knowledge of the Dutch Green party is at least as good
Well, I stand corrected on your presumed ignorance, but that makes your actual misrepresentation all the more offensive.
: "the very same Green Party decried how those sanctions were to the detriment of the Iraqi people and should have been lifted all along" - end of sentence. Now if that doesnt suggest that the Green Party didnt want sanctions in place I dont know what does. You even based your further argument on it by stating that when "attempts are made to actually enforce those laws" the left merely cries out about "how 'unfair' the laws are". Whereas in fact the Green Left, about which we were talking, proposed maintaining
sanctions and elaborated where and how they could be improved
Reread my original post again and explain how "replacing sanctions" is not the exact same thing as lifting THOSE sanctions?
As you can see above I did reread your post and you did not write anything like "THOSE
" - instead using the suggestion that the Greens opposed the sanctions, period, for your argument that the left never wants anything actually done about the laws they say they approve. An argument hardly proven by the actual position of the party, as our elaboration now has shown.
So the dilemma you illustrate about wanting to make laws but not uphold them is false rhetorics.
Uh huh.. It's false rhetoric but it's the difference you were trying to illustrate? So basically you disagree with yourself.. I see.
No, apparently you don't, but perhaps that's because I was too annoyed to express myself clearly.
The paradox you attribute first to the Greens, then to the left overall - that of favouring ever more laws but rejecting any attempt to uphold them - does not actually apply to the Greens in question, nor to the mainstream of the left. The only way you got to attrribute it to them was by misrepresenting their position. Hence the accusation of "false rhetorics".
This was all the more exasperating because the paradox does
crop up in the slogans of some radical leftist parties - for example the Socialist Party in the Netherlands and the ex-communist PDS in Germany (5% of the vote each) - and that is what the post you originally replied to had been about
. (Hence the "That was the difference within the left I was trying to illustrate ...").
Remember - ? - :
Here in Holland we have two leftist parties opposing the war - the Socialists and the Greens. The Socialists have the slogan "No Saddam No War" - well-meant, but basically meaningless in indicating anything more than opposition to this war - there's no alternative implied. The Greens on the other hand collect under the banner "Make Law Not War". I think that when, for example, Syria now comes up, we should focus on what we would propose in terms of international lawmaking and -enforcing to deal with its dictatorship, rather than merely on highlighting where Rumsfeld's case in the question is wrong
Basically, in this, my original post, I'd already made your point that "the left has to figure out that you can't have things both ways" - and had also already indicated that many in the left have
figured that out. The Greens here embody the choice that does
take on the responsibility of law-enforcement when pleading for more international law. Its opposition to this
war, like that of many here, is thus not a question of leftists opposing every action, but of Europeans considering this
war to be vigilantism rather than law-enforcement.
To see you basically ignore that whole distinction in your subsequent reply, only to simply replace it yet again by that same tired prejudice about what is "typically left", might explain a little of my hissy fit about the two cliched sides that one apparently is expected to choose between when posting on a2k politics.
find it greatly frustrating that discussion here is so polarized that most everywhere, the only thing in one's posts others will pick up on is that which they can use as fodder for their defense or attack of one of the two ever-battling sides. Sometimes they even pick it up in straight-out denial of what you actually just wrote, like you did just now. It gets exasperating to the point where I start using way too many italicized
words, and yes, that means I won't be posting here half
as much as I have
been anymore <grins>.)
Finally, as for me (or any Dutch poster) knowing more about American parties than the usual American poster knows about Dutch parties, that's not so much a Q of the arrogance you seem to imply as simply of contrasting necessities - there's not much need for any American to know anything about Dutch politics, duh, whereas we have no choice but to inform us about a country that so influences ours.