Finally catching up on all sorts of goings on that I’ve missed whilst work and life have been happening. Particularly a lot of commentary on a certain Parliamentary vote which apparently didn’t go the way the Prime Minister wanted and this is according to many a terrible thing and has ruined our standing in the world and so forth. With few exceptions most seem to think this has ruined our special relationship with the US (who won’t support us over the Falkand Islands), and oddly I’ve not seen anyone saying how finally we’ve got over our notions of grandeur. This I find a little odd as in previous conflicts I could have sworn I remember all sorts of people saying that the UK wasn’t a great power anymore and shouldn’t be swanning around telling other countries how to do things – so I’d kind of expected those same voices to be over joyed that on this occasion the UK in fact had decided not to go poking its nose into another countries affairs, but so far I’ve not found any such articles. Maybe I just imagined those claims last time round?
Anyway all that aside what’s really puzzling me is this, we along with the USA and a lot of the west have been spending quite a lot of time and energy and money and troops and all sorts of other things going round the world telling other countries how great democracy is and how they really need to be getting in
on the whole democracy game (and if they don’t we may just bomb them until they do). So why is that the moment a deomcratic process decides that hey lets not bomb people this time it’s some massive disaster? It really can’t be a good advertisement for the democracy thing we’re soon keen to export if the moment it does something the politicians and commentators don’t like it’s decried as a disaster? Isn’t that actually just telling all those people we’re trying to seel democracy to that we don’t actually think it works either and what they should be doing is having rule by fiat with a nice democracy facade?