Syriza Wins Greek Election

[Tahuti]

And how about the continued settlements in the West Bank that is derailing all US efforts to create peace in the region?

That issue ought to be limited to West Bank.

And you think there is not a lot of hatred towards the US for supporting Israel?

The problem is that Pro-Palestinian groups often tend be offended even at non-material support of Israel. There have been terrorist attacks at several European countries that had Pro-Israeli governments (but did not support it militarily by any means), including the Netherlands in 1972, as well against Jewish targets not explicitly linked to Israeli interests, such as in Antwerp in 1981. Which means that Western countries that have freedom of speech where Pro-Israel individuals are allowed speak out are by themselves at risk.

There is basically no way to avoid insulting the Palestinians without destroying fundamental aspects of Western society. Even if Israel is going out of line, it is rather self-defeating to oppose it and do nothing in kind against the Palestinian groups.

 

[aelf]

That issue ought to be limited to West Bank.

Wut?

The problem is that Pro-Palestinian groups often tend be offended even at non-material support of Israel. There have been terrorist attacks at several European countries that had Pro-Israeli governments (but did not support it militarily by any means), including the Netherlands in 1972, as well against Jewish targets not explicitly linked to Israeli interests, such as in Antwerp in 1981. Which means that Western countries that have freedom of speech where Pro-Israel individuals are allowed speak out are by themselves at risk.

There is basically no way to avoid insulting the Palestinians without destroying fundamental aspects of Western society. Even if Israel is going out of line, it is rather self-defeating to oppose it and do nothing in kind against the Palestinian groups.

Eh, policies that anger a few groups who would be angry no matter what certainly aren't comparable to the kind of terrorism magnet that the US' overwhelmingly pro-Israel policies are.

 

[Borachio]

Why does Greece need a big army?

Isn't it a hangover from the Turkish-Greek conflict? Cyprus is still an unsettled issue, isn't it? Though maybe it is. Otherwise how could Greece and Turkey be in NATO?

Yeah. No. Republic of Cyprus. I don't know.

 

[Leoreth]

If I'm not completely mistaken, both already were in the NATO when Cyprus became a hot issue.

 

[Borachio]

I think you're right. Both joined in 1952, apparently. The junta carried out a coup d'etat in Cyprus in 1974. Followed by a Turkish invasion.

 

[Tee Kay]

There is basically no way to avoid insulting the Palestinians without destroying fundamental aspects of Western society. Even if Israel is going out of line, it is rather self-defeating to oppose it and do nothing in kind against the Palestinian groups.

You oppose liberal democracy. Destroying fundamental aspects of Western society is your schtick.

 

[Tahuti]

Isn't it a hangover from the Turkish-Greek conflict? Cyprus is still an unsettled issue, isn't it? Though maybe it is. Otherwise how could Greece and Turkey be in NATO?

Yeah. No. Republic of Cyprus. I don't know.

Well, everything makes sense if you involve the Cold War. Greece and Turkey had a common enemy in the East-bloc and on top of that, Turkey had the USSR next to its doorstop while Greece was fighting a civil war, against Communists of all people.

It is quite easy to imagine why Greece and Turkey were not so reserved on joining.

You oppose liberal democracy. Destroying fundamental aspects of Western society is your schtick.

We evolved into liberal democracies. Even we do not fully agree with it, we have to defend it in the face of something more alien.

Besides, my views evolved somewhat; Culturally European countries have a citizenry that is enlightened enough to be entrusted with liberal democracy as we are able to temper democracy by rule of law, unlike Muslim majority countries. Maybe it is far from optimal, though it least we can work with it without fundamentally destroying ourselves with it.

Iraq 2003 was a failure because the US vainly attempted to have a non-reformed Muslim country follow both liberalism and democracy. Most Muslim countries simply cannot follow both, considering how Turkey's secularism was upheld in a series of military coups and is now withering away as it is becoming more democratic. Azerbaijan and Bosnia are perhaps the only Muslim countries in the world to have joined the West, which probably prove that it is possible with the right mentality, and perhaps luck as well, since the Azerbaijan went through numerous secularisation programmes enacted by the Soviet Union.

Wut?

Since World War II, there is been a trend to internationalise conflict between two nations that most of the world should not care about except perhaps in the context of power politics. All of this in the name of peace. Ironically, all it does is prolong conflicts. To put in the context of this thread OP: Should Greece be such a hot issue if it didn't owe West-European countries like ours money?

Eh, policies that anger a few groups who would be angry no matter what certainly aren't comparable to the kind of terrorism magnet that the US' overwhelmingly pro-Israel policies are.

Terrorism is never good. Even when the very thing terrorists fight against is evil, it doesn't stop making themselves such. Or make easier to exempt them from retribution.

 

[gay_Aleks]

You oppose liberal democracy. Destroying fundamental aspects of Western society is your schtick.

Considering liberal democracy is something that has been going for solely 150 years or so in Europe, and monarchy with all the nobles and kings has been going pretty much since Rome went down, you could say that in a rather twisted way, he's restoring the "fundamental aspects of Western society", whatever that would mean.

 

[innonimatu]

or the EU as the driving force behind the Troika would ned to accept that past agreements with Greece could be thrown out on a whim without repercussions and agree to further money transfers, making alot of governments lose face.

The key thing is that the new greek government is not acting on a whim. Greece had an election, the party which is now in charge ran with a platform of throwing out the troika. Anyone who still values democracy in Europe must respect that the new greek government is fulfilling its program, especially as the troika's entrance into greek was not ever previously put to a vote (the question was raised and then dropped after intense pressure/threats from certain other governments).

Its a joke really to say they want a debt conference which for all intents and purposes is what the troika is but not the troika because of democracy - neither the troika nor a debt conference are democratic - but democratic means would have left Greece defaulting long ago - the reason its done on the intergovernmental level instead of on individual countries level is precisely that governments all over are using this as cover to not face their voting public alone.

The troika is, we all understand, a set of rules which was imposed, not really negotiated. A conference will bring about a new intergovernmental agreement. And you can call that non-democratic and it will be in the sense that it probably won't be put to any referendum or whatever. But the reason why a conference became a democratic necessity is that a new government was elected on the premise of rejecting the troika. That they must do. And as a consequence this new government must engage in a new negotiation. Failing that, just flat out denounce the old agreements and replace them with nothing.

 

[ori]

The key thing is that the new greek government is not acting on a whim. Greece had an election, the party which is now in charge ran with a platform of throwing out the troika. Anyone who still values democracy in Europe must respect that the new greek government is fulfilling its program, especially as the troika's entrance into greek was not ever previously put to a vote (the question was raised and then dropped after intense pressure/threats from certain other governments).



The troika is, we all understand, a set of rules which was imposed, not really negotiated. A conference will bring about a new intergovernmental agreement. And you can call that non-democratic and it will be in the sense that it probably won't be put to any referendum or whatever. But the reason why a conference became a democratic necessity is that a new government was elected on the premise of rejecting the troika. That they must do. And as a consequence this new government must engage in a new negotiation. Failing that, just flat out denounce the old agreements and replace them with nothing.

If elections are valid reasons to throw out international agreements on a onesided basis you'll simply will not see them again - one side already adhered to their end of the agreement by handing over the money - now the other side doesn't want to adhere to their side of the bargain, yeah that is throwing those agreement out on a whim. No matter how you sugarcoat it - international agreements do rely heavily on trust that they will still be honored even if one side already received out of them all that they wanted.

As for "imposed" - no Greece was not forced to take these - their government was after negotiations given the option of taking these terms and the money or to not take the money. Neither side got all that they wanted, but Greece did not get the money without preconditions. One of them after the last conference including the IMF and EU they agreed for monetary relief in terms of new loans on quite favorable terms (compared to what they could get on the free market) in exchange they agreed on certain "reforms" and a control mechanism that has since become known as the troika. Also negotiations since have heavily altered the initial terms to the favor of Greece already - a new conference will not do anything else and given that that too would have behind closed door negotiations the effect would be the same: some terms in exchange for money and once the money is paid some politicians complaining about how that was unfairly and undemocratically "imposed". Right now given that this has already been done and given that Greece has shown its willingness to not adhere to their side of any bargain, what incentive should other countries have in the future to hand over even more money or even just alter the existing agreements any further?

 

[christos200]

If SYRIZA fails to achieve it's goals, guess where many of it's voters will go? As far fetched as it may seem that Golden Dawn will become the second or even first party, it is not a fictional scenario. Everyone thought that after the arrest of it's leaders and everything that the police have found, which indicate GD as a criminal organization, GD would be either out of the Parliament of fourth or fifth party. Yet, without any representation in the media at all and an effort by everyone to denounce them and despite the fact that it's leaders are in jail, it managed to become the third party.

Many of those who voted SYRIZA did not do so because they suddenly became leftists, but because they have been given the false impression that there is an easy way out of the crisis. So if SYRIZA fails to do what it has promised, many people will become disappointed and turn to the right. It seems completely fictional right now, but how many Germans in Weimar expected the rise of Hitler, especially after he too had been jailed? As Marx said, history is repeated. The first time as tragedy, the second as comedy.

The rise of GD in Greece and Le Pen in France certainly shows that Marx may have been right about this.

When one gives false hope to a people and fails to achieve what he has promised, he is responsible for undermining that nation's democracy. SYRIZA will either have to achieve what it has promised or it will be responsible for undermining Greek democracy.

Spoiler :

I know that some of you may read this and think, "he is delusional" and "he is overstating the danger of GD", but how many of you would have also called someone delusional in 2010 if he said that GD could emerge as the third largest political party in Greece?

 

[Kyriakos]

^Well, GD already lost one MP next to the previous election, and they look very irrelevant with a gov which tries to have a better deal. If Syriza does even somewhat positively i am sure the GD will be at 3-4% at best in the following year, from its just below 7% now Besides, compare the MPs there, GD would never have equally serious people in any minister position as Syriza now has. There just isn't the crowd there for that.

And yeah, of course many who voted for Syriza are not leftist, that is obvious. It is even more obvious that many (or likely virtually all) of the 6,8%^ who voted for GD are not fascist like GD is, so what is your point?

 

[christos200]

It is wrong to say that GD has lost the elections because it's % is below that of the last elections. They have become the third largest party when, after all those revelations, they should had been left out of the parliament. It is an impressive victory that after their leaders where jailed and all of the media turned against them, they managed to get in the third place when in the last elections they came fifth.

Besides, compare the MPs there, GD would never have equally serious people in any minister position as Syriza now has.

No one said that GD is serious. But you do not need to have serious people to get to power. If people voted depending on which party has the most professors, then none of the current parties would get to the parliament.

It is even more obvious that many (or likely virtually all) of the 6,8%^ who voted for GD are not fascist like GD is, so what is your point?

That reinforces my point. It shows that people who are not fascist but are desperate can vote for a fascist party. My point is that when SYRIZA fails, more of those not fascists but desperate people will support GD.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is wrong to say that GD has lost the elections because it's % is below that of the last elections. They have become the third largest party when, after all those revelations, they should had been left out of the parliament. It is an impressive victory that after their leaders where jailed and all of the media turned against them, they managed to get in the third place when in the last elections they came fifth.



No one said that GD is serious. But you do not need to have serious people to get to power. If people voted depending on which party has the most professors, then none of the current parties would get to the parliament.



That reinforces my point. It shows that people who are not fascist but are desperate can vote for a fascist party. My point is that when SYRIZA fails, more of those not fascists but desperate people will support GD.

Actually it is pretty certain that the 'revelations' (ie botched and not really democratic jailing without any trial of the gd mps, and not a trial months later either; remember that they were accused of being a 'criminal group', without any evidence of a tie to them in the killing of a rap musician who was leftist (SIC...) ) HELPED keep some people in gd's voting sum, cause they rightly were enraged of this dictatorial attitude by our previous goon government.
Also keep in mind that the Gd at least before had the ability to claim that only they wanted to change the nation-killing situation here, while now with the Syriza gov they lost their only card which appealed to people who just wanted to hope they would help, despite their connotations.

I remain confident that even in a minor success by Syriza (ie not dramatic, but still something positive) GD will be a distant memory in the next years.

 

[Kyriakos]

(DP, but it is a very different matter in the topic) Also, for some concerned friends here (couldn't resist ) :

Here a few voices about Greece and austerity

Noble winner Stiglitz -Germany's the problem, not Greece
Noble winner Krugman - End Greece nightmare
Economists urges: Cancel the debt
40 Australian economists urge debt forgiveness for Greece
Radio interview with prof. Steve Keen about Varoufakis, Greece and the EU in general

(originally listed by a poster at the TWC for the analogous thread links could not be auto copy-pasted, post and thread is in TWC today)

 

[Tahuti]

(originally listed by a poster at the TWC for the analogous thread links could not be auto copy-pasted, post and thread is in TWC today)

Failed debts are to varying degrees always the fault of the creditor as well, considering how the creditor has responsibility to evaluate whether debts can be repaid or not. He is taking a risk and he knows it.

 

[Leoreth]

Unless they've become a victim of fraud.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Point being that Nobel winning economists seem to not echo at all the 'lol you are lazy/tax evading is da problem', view.
Of course one could go with bachelor degree in economy euro politicians, or Bild.

 

[Arakhor]

Naturally, the views of economists vary more than the weather.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Except that you could eventually see the effect of weather. That can rarely be said about the opinions of economists.