<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: The Language: Some Issues Over “Issues”</title> <atom:link href="http://richardlangworth.com/the-language-some-issues-over-issues/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://richardlangworth.com/the-language-some-issues-over-issues</link> <description>Churchill historian, automotive and travel writer</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 02:15:09 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: Richard M. Langworth</title><link>http://richardlangworth.com/the-language-some-issues-over-issues#comment-327</link> <dc:creator>Richard M. Langworth</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:02:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://richardlangworth.com/?p=686#comment-327</guid> <description>First, thanks for using the word &quot;issue&quot; correctly and not in the Newspeak sense.Every nation has national interests. The point is that advancing them by subjugating another nation is wrong; ask a Pole about the old Soviets. There IS a difference between &quot;them&quot; and &quot;us.&quot;</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, thanks for using the word “issue” correctly and not in the Newspeak sense.</p><p>Every nation has national interests. The point is that advancing them by subjugating another nation is wrong; ask a Pole about the old Soviets. There IS a difference between “them” and “us.”</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Elliot</title><link>http://richardlangworth.com/the-language-some-issues-over-issues#comment-326</link> <dc:creator>Elliot</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 2011 18:43:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://richardlangworth.com/?p=686#comment-326</guid> <description>I have &quot;issue&quot; with your argument that Churchill and Britain were NOT the same as Stalin and Russia. You argue that the national interests of both countries in Greece and Poland differ tremendously: Russia - centralised control of Poland, dictating its present and future from Moscow. Britain - asking for support for British policy after the war, and ouzo concession for Harrods.BUT - you are just describing the differences between the ideologies between the two countries. Stalin was a dictator of a Marxist-Leninist state, intent on centralised control of its population and belief in a state managed economy. That is precisely how they operated, and Poland was no exception. Churchill&#039;s Britain, based on a liberal democratic ideology was of course not going to actively &#039;force&#039; the Greek decisionmakers into policy that would favor the British. (Although the troops sent in after the 1944 conference to fight the Communist faction in Greece, was essentially pushing the country towards keeping a democratic government).Arguments made over the difference of national interest are ideological, and therefore the original question of whether they were the same in essence is arguably yes. Both were dominated by self-interest, the intent of both Churchill and Stalin being similar in both instances. Both wanted influence in each country, and their own ideology to be stamped on it, for both economic and security reasoning. Just their ideologies went about and implemented their objectives differently.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have “issue” with your argument that Churchill and Britain were NOT the same as Stalin and Russia. You argue that the national interests of both countries in Greece and Poland differ tremendously: Russia – centralised control of Poland, dictating its present and future from Moscow. Britain – asking for support for British policy after the war, and ouzo concession for Harrods.</p><p>BUT – you are just describing the differences between the ideologies between the two countries. Stalin was a dictator of a Marxist-Leninist state, intent on centralised control of its population and belief in a state managed economy. That is precisely how they operated, and Poland was no exception. Churchill’s Britain, based on a liberal democratic ideology was of course not going to actively ‘force’ the Greek decisionmakers into policy that would favor the British. (Although the troops sent in after the 1944 conference to fight the Communist faction in Greece, was essentially pushing the country towards keeping a democratic government).</p><p>Arguments made over the difference of national interest are ideological, and therefore the original question of whether they were the same in essence is arguably yes. Both were dominated by self-interest, the intent of both Churchill and Stalin being similar in both instances. Both wanted influence in each country, and their own ideology to be stamped on it, for both economic and security reasoning. Just their ideologies went about and implemented their objectives differently.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Rick</title><link>http://richardlangworth.com/the-language-some-issues-over-issues#comment-33</link> <dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:51:21 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://richardlangworth.com/?p=686#comment-33</guid> <description>Amen, Amen, and Amen.
And nobody better have any &quot;issues&quot; with that.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen, Amen, and Amen.<br
/> And nobody better have any “issues” with that.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: richardlangworth.com @ 2012-05-17 22:48:53 by W3 Total Cache -->
