Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Iraq: The Conservative Party's Clause 4 moment
One of the reasons given for New Labour's revival in the mid-1990s was that the Tony Blair made some meaningful - and very public - breaks with his party's discredited socialist past.
The most often mentioned break was his tearing up of Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution which, basically, stated the Party's commitment to state ownership of the means of production. The British public was convinced that the state should own as little as possible and Labour had to show they were in tune with this sentiment. So they removed clause 4.
Since his election as Conservative Party leader, David Cameron has been looking for a similar symbol of his 'changed' Conservative Party. He too needs something to tear up in order to provide symbolic - if not actual - evidence of the Party's transformation into something we think the public will vote for. He needs a Clause 4 moment.
Here's an idea for one:
The attack on Iraq was in many respects a deeply un-conservative action. The country had nothing with which to threaten us - or, at least, it possessed little if any more than any other unpleasant dictatorship and considerably less than some others - and its people operated in a religious and social environment that had evolved over the centuries and which was familiar, comfortable and right for the people who were born into it.
The war showed no respect for the settled life of a proud people nor did it acknowledge the sanctity of national sovereignty - two standard conservative values. The intention of the war - to remove an oppressor in order to force onto an unwilling population an alien political creed called democracy - renders our high-minded rejection of armed incursions - by others - into other states meaningless.
Leaving aside the escalating failures of the project (inevitable partition of the country, religious sects' use of the democratic tool of voting as a means to instil non-democratic theocracies of their own particular flavour, usurping of coalition authority by the tribes and the appalling possibility of another Islamic theocracy) we have, hand in hand with the war, the shame of Guantanamo, a place where our belief in principle, justice, law, and fair play could be easily construed as sham, as little more than an affectation.
Of course, one must be pragmatic and pragmatism does not sit easily with solid principle. Principles do have to have exceptions because complex life simply cannot be lived in accordance with immutable law. But the Iraq war and the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay are not regrettable but necessary - and temporary - bendings of established principle. The prosecution of these projects by countries with huge resources and a willingness to continue for years amounts to overwhelming evidence that our belief in western values is one of convenience and that the values that mark the civilised west from the barbarian wherever have been shed wholesale and without shame in pursuit of something we are not especially clear about but which is deemed to be more valuable than living a clean and honourable life.
My suggestion to David Cameron is that he give deep consideration to his stance on the war and ask himself some searching - and difficult - questions. Leave aside (for now) the suffering of those on the receiving end of our actions in Iraq and, instead, let us ask ourselves: Who are we as a country? What do we stand for? What do we regard as right - as opposed to easy? What do we believe in?
Better still, let the Conservative Party lock itself away in a quiet room for a couple of days, remove - for now - from their thoughts the reality of the world outside and spend some time answering questions like those. Let them form a view of themselves and of their country that they find pleasing and which they can comfortably and calmly describe, promulgate and defend. Let them be idealists for a while, purists even. Let them be fantasise about how truly good a country like England could be if they only put their minds to it.
Then David Cameron will find his clause 4 moment. Because he will not be able to defend the indefensible and he will not have to try to make good out of something clearly not good and he will not have to try to appear principled in relation to a project that contains barely an ounce of principle.
Let him dissociate the UK from the Iraq war (although, for pragmatic reasons, not necessarily withdraw troops). Let him demand the Americans subject the Guantanamo detainees to standard US law. Let David Cameron show he really is different, that the Conservative Party really has changed by being bold and brave and speaking up for right over wrong. If David Cameron can think openly and clearly enough to realise the war was wrong and if he stated publicly that the war was wrong then the Conservative Party's dissociation from the project would give him his clause 4 moment and might show the British public that he might just be the man he wishes to be seen as.
The most often mentioned break was his tearing up of Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution which, basically, stated the Party's commitment to state ownership of the means of production. The British public was convinced that the state should own as little as possible and Labour had to show they were in tune with this sentiment. So they removed clause 4.
Since his election as Conservative Party leader, David Cameron has been looking for a similar symbol of his 'changed' Conservative Party. He too needs something to tear up in order to provide symbolic - if not actual - evidence of the Party's transformation into something we think the public will vote for. He needs a Clause 4 moment.
Here's an idea for one:
The attack on Iraq was in many respects a deeply un-conservative action. The country had nothing with which to threaten us - or, at least, it possessed little if any more than any other unpleasant dictatorship and considerably less than some others - and its people operated in a religious and social environment that had evolved over the centuries and which was familiar, comfortable and right for the people who were born into it.
The war showed no respect for the settled life of a proud people nor did it acknowledge the sanctity of national sovereignty - two standard conservative values. The intention of the war - to remove an oppressor in order to force onto an unwilling population an alien political creed called democracy - renders our high-minded rejection of armed incursions - by others - into other states meaningless.
Leaving aside the escalating failures of the project (inevitable partition of the country, religious sects' use of the democratic tool of voting as a means to instil non-democratic theocracies of their own particular flavour, usurping of coalition authority by the tribes and the appalling possibility of another Islamic theocracy) we have, hand in hand with the war, the shame of Guantanamo, a place where our belief in principle, justice, law, and fair play could be easily construed as sham, as little more than an affectation.
Of course, one must be pragmatic and pragmatism does not sit easily with solid principle. Principles do have to have exceptions because complex life simply cannot be lived in accordance with immutable law. But the Iraq war and the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay are not regrettable but necessary - and temporary - bendings of established principle. The prosecution of these projects by countries with huge resources and a willingness to continue for years amounts to overwhelming evidence that our belief in western values is one of convenience and that the values that mark the civilised west from the barbarian wherever have been shed wholesale and without shame in pursuit of something we are not especially clear about but which is deemed to be more valuable than living a clean and honourable life.
My suggestion to David Cameron is that he give deep consideration to his stance on the war and ask himself some searching - and difficult - questions. Leave aside (for now) the suffering of those on the receiving end of our actions in Iraq and, instead, let us ask ourselves: Who are we as a country? What do we stand for? What do we regard as right - as opposed to easy? What do we believe in?
Better still, let the Conservative Party lock itself away in a quiet room for a couple of days, remove - for now - from their thoughts the reality of the world outside and spend some time answering questions like those. Let them form a view of themselves and of their country that they find pleasing and which they can comfortably and calmly describe, promulgate and defend. Let them be idealists for a while, purists even. Let them be fantasise about how truly good a country like England could be if they only put their minds to it.
Then David Cameron will find his clause 4 moment. Because he will not be able to defend the indefensible and he will not have to try to make good out of something clearly not good and he will not have to try to appear principled in relation to a project that contains barely an ounce of principle.
Let him dissociate the UK from the Iraq war (although, for pragmatic reasons, not necessarily withdraw troops). Let him demand the Americans subject the Guantanamo detainees to standard US law. Let David Cameron show he really is different, that the Conservative Party really has changed by being bold and brave and speaking up for right over wrong. If David Cameron can think openly and clearly enough to realise the war was wrong and if he stated publicly that the war was wrong then the Conservative Party's dissociation from the project would give him his clause 4 moment and might show the British public that he might just be the man he wishes to be seen as.
# posted by Gary Monro : Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Comments:
<< Home
Would he not be in danger of the accusation that he is
a) looking backwards to an old story
b) choosing something for populist reasons?
a) looking backwards to an old story
b) choosing something for populist reasons?
Let us have Guatanamos here instead of treating killers and muggers as royalty.That would be a Conservative move.
You do not need a 'clause 4' because the Conservatives have nothing to apologise for.They were right(remember?).Labour had to adapt to conservative standards of right.What perversity to then say we have to change.Where is the sense in what you are saying?
So much confusion in your comments...
Remember Thatcher wanted to go on to Baghdad in the Gulf War and had she not been assasinated and replaced by Major the Iraq war would not have been necessary, 12 years later.
You do not need a 'clause 4' because the Conservatives have nothing to apologise for.They were right(remember?).Labour had to adapt to conservative standards of right.What perversity to then say we have to change.Where is the sense in what you are saying?
So much confusion in your comments...
Remember Thatcher wanted to go on to Baghdad in the Gulf War and had she not been assasinated and replaced by Major the Iraq war would not have been necessary, 12 years later.
Chris,
Yes, unfortunately on both accounts I think he would. I'm actually not sure what his stance is on the war but if he's supported it in the past then he'd be wide open to various accusations if he changed his mind now.
Niconoclast,
Actually, there would be little 'conservative' in locking people up without trial or representation for indefinite periods. It was conservatives who opposed the 90 day remand limit remember.
It is not I who has stated the Conservative Party has to change; it has been Mr Cameron's mantra since before the leadership election. I am simply saying that, if he wants to really separate the Party from the pack then here is a way of doing it. For the reasons given by Chris, I'm thinking wishflly rather than practically.
Thatcher could not have gone on to Baghdad during the Gulf war because the allies had agreed to not do such a thing in order to secure important Arab support for that war. The current Iraq war is not, in my opinion, necessary now. It might be useful or convenient but it is not necessary.
Yes, unfortunately on both accounts I think he would. I'm actually not sure what his stance is on the war but if he's supported it in the past then he'd be wide open to various accusations if he changed his mind now.
Niconoclast,
Actually, there would be little 'conservative' in locking people up without trial or representation for indefinite periods. It was conservatives who opposed the 90 day remand limit remember.
It is not I who has stated the Conservative Party has to change; it has been Mr Cameron's mantra since before the leadership election. I am simply saying that, if he wants to really separate the Party from the pack then here is a way of doing it. For the reasons given by Chris, I'm thinking wishflly rather than practically.
Thatcher could not have gone on to Baghdad during the Gulf war because the allies had agreed to not do such a thing in order to secure important Arab support for that war. The current Iraq war is not, in my opinion, necessary now. It might be useful or convenient but it is not necessary.
Very well put, Gary.
There is nothing more to add.
I also think it was a betrayal of conservative principles, i.e Social Engineering on a grand scale.
There is nothing more to add.
I also think it was a betrayal of conservative principles, i.e Social Engineering on a grand scale.
I'm saddened to have to acknowledge that this is one of the very few pieces of yours with which I profoundly disagree. To say that Iraq posed no threat to us is not very helpful. Hitler, too, posed no threat to us. He would have been quite happy to dominate Europe, while Britain kept her empire. After Dunkirk, he was quite happy to settle with Britain. Luckily, Churchill perceived that the man COULD NOT BE TRUSTED. In the same way, Sadam was playing with the UN, destabilising the Middle-east, and was an enemy of the West and had shown how aggressive, unreliable and ambitious he was. He may not have had wmd, but he certainly gave everyone reason to believe that he had them (more convincingly than the notion that Hitler was developing nuclear weapons - and just as critically). To say that Iraq was no threat to us is an appalling example of ostrich like isolationism. Whether we like it or not, we have international responsibilities. Whether the war has been conducted incompetently, parsimoniously, or scandalously is not the issue. To talk about a social and political situation in which people were familiar, comfortable and right, again is hardly the issue. Were not the Germans ditto with the Nazis? Wasn't it AJP Taylor who said that Nazi Germany was the most popular regime it had ever had? Didn't millions of Russians cry when Stalin died? And to talk about democracy being an alien creed is almost offensive after having seen those remarkable pictures of three extremely popular elections/referenda. Do you really want to turn your back on people who yearn for peace and freedom, and hand them over to the "stability" of Islamofascist thugs? And to talk about us violating national sovereignty when we have been trying desperately to keep that country together, and it is the Sunni jihadists who don't give a damn for national sovereignty .... I could go on, point by point, but you get the gist of what I am trying to say. A very disappointing post.
# posted by 
: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:44:00 PM
: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:44:00 PM
When do we invade Zimbabwe Robert?
Best start early as there's a long long list of regimes that must need our attention.
Best start early as there's a long long list of regimes that must need our attention.
Hitler, too, posed no threat to us.
Absolutely barking.
Saddam was contained, Hitler wasn't.
Saddam couldn't even mount an effective threat against his neighbours, never mind the UK. Trustworthy is not the issue. He was impotent. Hitler was rather obviously a different case.
Not only that but containing Saddam was many orders of magnitude cheaper than the war - both in terms of human life and cold hard cash - a point that is often overlooked.
Absolutely barking.
Saddam was contained, Hitler wasn't.
Saddam couldn't even mount an effective threat against his neighbours, never mind the UK. Trustworthy is not the issue. He was impotent. Hitler was rather obviously a different case.
Not only that but containing Saddam was many orders of magnitude cheaper than the war - both in terms of human life and cold hard cash - a point that is often overlooked.
Chris - Zimbabwe is no threat to the international order or to his neighbours.
Frank - it is a fact that Hitler was always hoping that Britain would stay out of the war. If you say I'm wrong about that, offer some evidence, but don't call me mad. It is, however, obvious, as I make clear in my post, that Hitler was not to be trusted, and once he had Europe in his bag - and presumably the Soviet Union - he would not have let Britain and her Empire be, but would have made more demands. I don't think Saddam could have been contained, until too late, just as Iran, now, is difficult to contain. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that Saddam had been violating the peace treaty of the 1st Iraq war for a decade; that EVERYONE thought - "knew" indeed - that Saddam had wmd, and he himself sent out ambiguous messages, and never co-operated fully as, say, South Africa did, or as Lybia was to do. When Bush went to the White House, he inherited an assumption, he didn't invent a new idea. Saddam would push the boundaries until the international community got nervous, then pretended to co-operate, until the heat died down, then continued as before. He could play this game indefinitely, making a monkey out of the UN and the international community, acquiring hero status in the Arab street. An extremely dangerous man who aspired to lead the Arab world, who dabbled in wmd and terrorism, a wild card. The UN had said time and time again, "cross this line, and we authorise war"; Saddam crossed the line time and time again, and the UN promptly drew another line. It was Britain and the US who had the courage to say that the final line had been crossed. It was France and Germany who wanted to draw another line. Surely, despite your argument, you will admit that at some stage the international community has to take a stand - beyond sanctions and oil for food!
Frank - it is a fact that Hitler was always hoping that Britain would stay out of the war. If you say I'm wrong about that, offer some evidence, but don't call me mad. It is, however, obvious, as I make clear in my post, that Hitler was not to be trusted, and once he had Europe in his bag - and presumably the Soviet Union - he would not have let Britain and her Empire be, but would have made more demands. I don't think Saddam could have been contained, until too late, just as Iran, now, is difficult to contain. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that Saddam had been violating the peace treaty of the 1st Iraq war for a decade; that EVERYONE thought - "knew" indeed - that Saddam had wmd, and he himself sent out ambiguous messages, and never co-operated fully as, say, South Africa did, or as Lybia was to do. When Bush went to the White House, he inherited an assumption, he didn't invent a new idea. Saddam would push the boundaries until the international community got nervous, then pretended to co-operate, until the heat died down, then continued as before. He could play this game indefinitely, making a monkey out of the UN and the international community, acquiring hero status in the Arab street. An extremely dangerous man who aspired to lead the Arab world, who dabbled in wmd and terrorism, a wild card. The UN had said time and time again, "cross this line, and we authorise war"; Saddam crossed the line time and time again, and the UN promptly drew another line. It was Britain and the US who had the courage to say that the final line had been crossed. It was France and Germany who wanted to draw another line. Surely, despite your argument, you will admit that at some stage the international community has to take a stand - beyond sanctions and oil for food!
# posted by : Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:30:00 PM
: Saturday, February 25, 2006 2:30:00 PM
Robert,
Frank - it is a fact that Hitler was always hoping that Britain would stay out of the war.
It's a long way from there to Hitler posing no threat.
That Hitler posed an immediate threat to Britain is obvious from the damage he actually inflicted on Britain. That Saddam didn't is just as obvious in the damage he didn't inflict.
On the other hand if everyone had stood up to Hitler as the UN stood up to the US then perhaps WW2 would have been unnecessary.
After all Hitler and Bush were both sort of kind of elected and both invented justifications for invading a country that posed no threat.
that EVERYONE thought - "knew" indeed - that Saddam had wmd,
Everyone except US intelligence, France, China, Russia, Germany, and an awful lot of ordinary people in the UK and USA.
Surely, despite your argument, you will admit that at some stage the international community has to take a stand - beyond sanctions and oil for food!
The international community did take a stand. They refused to authorise an invasion. The US ignored it, just as Saddam did, and just as Hitler would have, and Britain went along for the ride.
Frank - it is a fact that Hitler was always hoping that Britain would stay out of the war.
It's a long way from there to Hitler posing no threat.
That Hitler posed an immediate threat to Britain is obvious from the damage he actually inflicted on Britain. That Saddam didn't is just as obvious in the damage he didn't inflict.
On the other hand if everyone had stood up to Hitler as the UN stood up to the US then perhaps WW2 would have been unnecessary.
After all Hitler and Bush were both sort of kind of elected and both invented justifications for invading a country that posed no threat.
that EVERYONE thought - "knew" indeed - that Saddam had wmd,
Everyone except US intelligence, France, China, Russia, Germany, and an awful lot of ordinary people in the UK and USA.
Surely, despite your argument, you will admit that at some stage the international community has to take a stand - beyond sanctions and oil for food!
The international community did take a stand. They refused to authorise an invasion. The US ignored it, just as Saddam did, and just as Hitler would have, and Britain went along for the ride.
Ah, Frank, there are just so many points of difference between our views, and different interpretations of what happened, that I don't think we will get very far with this discussion. I do not think that what you say is true, eg with regard to the opinions of the CIA, the French, and so on (but I assert this from memory, and it would require some research to "prove" my point, which you wouldn't believe anyway); or correct, eg with regard to the "damage inflicted in Britain", which came AFTER the situation about which I am talking, and which is therefore not relevant to my point about POTENTIAL threats (after Dunkirk, Hitler had NO plans for the invasion of Britain, and awaited "peace feelers" from Britain), and eg the point about the line in the sand, your interpretation of which twists my point to suit you, but fails to answer my question; and in particular, your remark that Britain "went along for the ride" which I find (with respect) to be too glib and therefore incredible - another version on "Blair the Poodle" which I find (again with repect - we are all entitled to our off the cuff remarks) plain silly. I'm happy to let it rest, both of us having made our points. It is Gary's blog; he can take or leave our discussion as he chooses.
# posted by : Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:22:00 PM
: Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:22:00 PM
Iraq threatened the US empire by refusing internationalist control over it`s oil and economy.
Iraq was transferring it`s economy over to the Euro which, if you understand money creation, would have been the beginning of the end for the $US and the US empire which is based on the Federal Reserve monopoly over the creation of the worlds money supply.
Hitler`s Germany was in fact the exact same threat to the internationalist Utopian planners as he also withdrew from dependence of the debt merchants and released the vast potential of the German Nation b creating his own money supply.
Mythical "gas chambers" and "weapons of mass production" are propaganda strategies just as now Iran is to establish an oil trading market outside of the $US control and they too must be demonized with propaganda and possibly brought into line with military policy.
If the poorly informed commentators on this blog would simply take the time to humbly and seriously examine the "Holohoax" issue behind the Irving Austrian trial the staggering depth of propaganda in our time would be better understood and the centrality of controlling credit creation and money supply as the seat of all power in the world today could be comprehended.
Only with this knowledge can sense be made of Iraq, Iran and "free speech" suppression.
The election or otherwise of Labour or Conservative political regimes in Britain is of no consequence to these deeper matters because both factions are tools of the same masters employed to mask the theft and exploitation of an abundant and generous creation from a confused and ignorant populous.
Look around the world at the tragedy of human effort and shed a tear, then do something constructive like committing yourself to being properly informed about the political realities we must confront if we are to do better.
Iraq was transferring it`s economy over to the Euro which, if you understand money creation, would have been the beginning of the end for the $US and the US empire which is based on the Federal Reserve monopoly over the creation of the worlds money supply.
Hitler`s Germany was in fact the exact same threat to the internationalist Utopian planners as he also withdrew from dependence of the debt merchants and released the vast potential of the German Nation b creating his own money supply.
Mythical "gas chambers" and "weapons of mass production" are propaganda strategies just as now Iran is to establish an oil trading market outside of the $US control and they too must be demonized with propaganda and possibly brought into line with military policy.
If the poorly informed commentators on this blog would simply take the time to humbly and seriously examine the "Holohoax" issue behind the Irving Austrian trial the staggering depth of propaganda in our time would be better understood and the centrality of controlling credit creation and money supply as the seat of all power in the world today could be comprehended.
Only with this knowledge can sense be made of Iraq, Iran and "free speech" suppression.
The election or otherwise of Labour or Conservative political regimes in Britain is of no consequence to these deeper matters because both factions are tools of the same masters employed to mask the theft and exploitation of an abundant and generous creation from a confused and ignorant populous.
Look around the world at the tragedy of human effort and shed a tear, then do something constructive like committing yourself to being properly informed about the political realities we must confront if we are to do better.
Robert,
Fair enough, but a couple points of clarification:
eg with regard to the "damage inflicted in Britain", which came AFTER the situation about which I am talking, and which is therefore not relevant to my point about POTENTIAL threats (after Dunkirk, Hitler had NO plans for the invasion of Britain, and awaited "peace feelers" from Britain)
I understood the point you were making regarding potential threat vs. immediate threat. I wasn't conflating time X with time Y.
My point was only that had someone said that Hitler posed no immediate threat at that time, they would have been amply rebutted by later events. As you say yourself, he couldn't be trusted. But as later events were also to show, he additionally had the capability to inflict real damage. The Blitz would be proof enough of that.
The same can't be said of Saddam - those who said he posed no immediate threat back then were right, and now with 20/20 hindsight we know they were right.
I'll also answer your question re the line in the sand, which I answered slightly facetiously first time round. You have a point, however there is a difference between war being authorised and war being necessary or wise. Also, it is doublethink to use UN resolutions to condemn Saddam and at the same time ignore that the US sought a UN resolution to authorise war and the UN rejected it.
There are some moral reasons that could have been advanced to invade Iraq but I just don't think that WMD and the even more appalling lie of connecting Saddam to 9/11 and al-Quaeda are among them. The US and UK should have been more honest about their project, but of course if they had then they would never have brought the public along.
Fair enough, but a couple points of clarification:
eg with regard to the "damage inflicted in Britain", which came AFTER the situation about which I am talking, and which is therefore not relevant to my point about POTENTIAL threats (after Dunkirk, Hitler had NO plans for the invasion of Britain, and awaited "peace feelers" from Britain)
I understood the point you were making regarding potential threat vs. immediate threat. I wasn't conflating time X with time Y.
My point was only that had someone said that Hitler posed no immediate threat at that time, they would have been amply rebutted by later events. As you say yourself, he couldn't be trusted. But as later events were also to show, he additionally had the capability to inflict real damage. The Blitz would be proof enough of that.
The same can't be said of Saddam - those who said he posed no immediate threat back then were right, and now with 20/20 hindsight we know they were right.
I'll also answer your question re the line in the sand, which I answered slightly facetiously first time round. You have a point, however there is a difference between war being authorised and war being necessary or wise. Also, it is doublethink to use UN resolutions to condemn Saddam and at the same time ignore that the US sought a UN resolution to authorise war and the UN rejected it.
There are some moral reasons that could have been advanced to invade Iraq but I just don't think that WMD and the even more appalling lie of connecting Saddam to 9/11 and al-Quaeda are among them. The US and UK should have been more honest about their project, but of course if they had then they would never have brought the public along.
By the way Robert - apologies for the 'absolutely barking' remark. That was unecessarily inflammatory. It was directed at the text I quoted, not you.
Not that Mr. Holohoax has arrived, I'm reminded what absolutely barking really looks like...
Not that Mr. Holohoax has arrived, I'm reminded what absolutely barking really looks like...
Frank, the "Blitz" is a typical example of propaganda effect on our perceptions.
During the whole period of the second world war Germany dropped less bomb tonnes on London than dropped in a single night on Dresden when that city was incinerated by a carefully planned strategy to manufacture a firestorm and kill large numbers of civilians.
These are the issues that David Irving confronted while other Historians exercised censorship and pretend the world is black and white.
His courage has cost him his career and now finds him jailed for three years.
How does his predicament measure up on the "British" values monitor?
During the whole period of the second world war Germany dropped less bomb tonnes on London than dropped in a single night on Dresden when that city was incinerated by a carefully planned strategy to manufacture a firestorm and kill large numbers of civilians.
These are the issues that David Irving confronted while other Historians exercised censorship and pretend the world is black and white.
His courage has cost him his career and now finds him jailed for three years.
How does his predicament measure up on the "British" values monitor?
Christopher, the Blitz vis a vis Dresden is a straw man your knocking down. It is well known that bombing of cities was a highly questionable strategy, both morally and strategically. No one seriously questions that the fire-bombing of Dresden, Hamburg (and, for that matter, cities in Japan) was horrific. Yes, "British values" are weakened by such acts; it merely demonstrates that civilisation is a very fragile (but essential)construct, and that when enough people (in this case, the German and Japanese nations) abuse civilised norms, they drag everyone else down with them. You cannot talk to thugs, you have to fight like with like. In politics, however, life is even more complicated. For example the USSR was putting pressure on the West to do something; it was thought - probably not without reason - that anything that caused chaos and havoc within Germaqny must contribute to that country's defeat. One can think of many other reasons why it was deemed essential to bomb. It is all very well to sit on a bar stool fifty years after the event and make judgements, but when you are fighting a war, perspectives are a little different. Finally, why do you expect perfection from Britain in living up to its values? Civilised values are an aspiration we all should try to live up to, and constantly fail to achieve - but it is the attempt that counts, not the lapses. I can be as ashamed as you by the lapses of my fellow countrymen, without calling the whole thing a sham.
# posted by : Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:38:00 AM
: Sunday, February 26, 2006 8:38:00 AM
Mr Aldridge,
I'm glad it's only been a few posts that you've disagreed with! It's always good to read your contibutions.
I think the situation with Iran probably (with hindsight) provides a perfect example of a country that is probably a threat against one which probably isn't.
Iran has a theocratic government - which, I must say, I consider to be dangerous in itself - and is in the process of developing technology which could be used to threaten this country. Further, either the current Iranian regime or a future one could be mad enough to unleash nuclear weapons on the west as part of its 'defence' of Islam. Far-fetched? It only has to come true the once. Some might say - not me (yet) - that getting to them first may be a justifiable act. Therefore, there could be a good argument for attacking Iran as it has - or is obtaining - weapons of mass destruction and there is a higher than normal possibility that they may turn them on us.
Whereas Saddam's WMDs really didn't amount to much more than poisonous gasses which, despite being used in the most barbaric ways, never threatened you or I. And since the west never really cared much for marsh arabs his ability to wipe out troublesome parts of his country has been considered a domestic affair. Indeed, we happily armed the tyrant when he was fighting somebody we detested even more - ironically, Iran.
You say Saddam gave everybody reason to believe he had WMDs. Did he? Really? He didn't give the weapons inspectors much reason to believe and he gave Blair so little reason to believe that he had to make the evidence up. And of course Saddam pretended he had more than he really did - he has a country to oppress. He's hardly going to come clean and admit his arsenal consists of some antique Lee Enfields and 50 litres of extract of B&Q weed killer. There'd be a riot. Literally.
To say that Iraq was no threat to us is an appalling example of ostrich like isolationism. Whether we like it or not, we have international responsibilities.
Ouch. I'm not an isolationist - though I do tend that way. We cannot cure our own problems to be honest and the world has far, far too many for us to contend with. As Chris suggests, the list of countries requiring our assistance is very, very long. It is madness to even start. I think we sometimes should go to war - but we need to pick our wars very carefully. I don't think we did with Iraq.
To talk about a social and political situation in which people were familiar, comfortable and right, again is hardly the issue. Were not the Germans ditto with the Nazis?
It's the whole issue. Iraq - or the area that constitutes Iraq - is Muslim and tribal by tradition. To force something statist - which is what democracy is to a large extent - on a tribal society is a shade of imperialism. And it's the forcing of democracy on Iraq that is the whole point of this war.
The idea of the war is to create 'democracy' in one state in the hope that discontented Arabs in other countries of the region demand the same systems of accountability and representation in their own countries. They will hopefully overthrow dictatorships and cause the emergence of stable new nations based on western ideas of freedom and liberty. The inevitable free(ish) markets that then emerge provide plenty of trading opportunities for all (although more for some than others, of course).
And to talk about democracy being an alien creed is almost offensive after having seen those remarkable pictures of three extremely popular elections/referenda.
Mr Aldridge, do you equate the acceptance of democracy with some higher, intellectual and/or moral functioning? Is the suggestion that democracy is alien in some way to denigrate those who find it alien? I suspect you feel I am accusing those who are unfamiliar with - and, perhaps, suspicious of - democracy as suffering some lack of sophistication or decency or intellect. But I do not exalt democracy as you might do (although I certainly prefer it) and I recognise that other people's system have virtues too. If you live in a tribal village and are content with the way of life shared by your father, grandfather and his father before him then you are entitled to continue it.
The voting in Iraq isn't as wonderful as you suggest. The Sunnis boycotted the first election and only turned out to the second one because they saw the Shia'as grabbing advantage. And despite the voting Iraqis still gravitate towards tribal leaders, ethnic groupings and their own flavour of Islam. With it, comes rioting, suicide bombings and the desecration of mosques. Voting most certainly does not equal democracy.
Do you really want to turn your back on people who yearn for peace and freedom, and hand them over to the "stability" of Islamofascist thugs?
Well, there were no Islamofascist thugs before we turned up. True, there was Saddam but since we're not the world's social worker it was none of our business.
A very disappointing post.
I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. But I'm very glad you chose to articulate an alternative view. I like my views to be validated of course - I'm that vain - but I also like to learn from contrary ideas so thank you for taking the time.
I'm glad it's only been a few posts that you've disagreed with! It's always good to read your contibutions.
I think the situation with Iran probably (with hindsight) provides a perfect example of a country that is probably a threat against one which probably isn't.
Iran has a theocratic government - which, I must say, I consider to be dangerous in itself - and is in the process of developing technology which could be used to threaten this country. Further, either the current Iranian regime or a future one could be mad enough to unleash nuclear weapons on the west as part of its 'defence' of Islam. Far-fetched? It only has to come true the once. Some might say - not me (yet) - that getting to them first may be a justifiable act. Therefore, there could be a good argument for attacking Iran as it has - or is obtaining - weapons of mass destruction and there is a higher than normal possibility that they may turn them on us.
Whereas Saddam's WMDs really didn't amount to much more than poisonous gasses which, despite being used in the most barbaric ways, never threatened you or I. And since the west never really cared much for marsh arabs his ability to wipe out troublesome parts of his country has been considered a domestic affair. Indeed, we happily armed the tyrant when he was fighting somebody we detested even more - ironically, Iran.
You say Saddam gave everybody reason to believe he had WMDs. Did he? Really? He didn't give the weapons inspectors much reason to believe and he gave Blair so little reason to believe that he had to make the evidence up. And of course Saddam pretended he had more than he really did - he has a country to oppress. He's hardly going to come clean and admit his arsenal consists of some antique Lee Enfields and 50 litres of extract of B&Q weed killer. There'd be a riot. Literally.
To say that Iraq was no threat to us is an appalling example of ostrich like isolationism. Whether we like it or not, we have international responsibilities.
Ouch. I'm not an isolationist - though I do tend that way. We cannot cure our own problems to be honest and the world has far, far too many for us to contend with. As Chris suggests, the list of countries requiring our assistance is very, very long. It is madness to even start. I think we sometimes should go to war - but we need to pick our wars very carefully. I don't think we did with Iraq.
To talk about a social and political situation in which people were familiar, comfortable and right, again is hardly the issue. Were not the Germans ditto with the Nazis?
It's the whole issue. Iraq - or the area that constitutes Iraq - is Muslim and tribal by tradition. To force something statist - which is what democracy is to a large extent - on a tribal society is a shade of imperialism. And it's the forcing of democracy on Iraq that is the whole point of this war.
The idea of the war is to create 'democracy' in one state in the hope that discontented Arabs in other countries of the region demand the same systems of accountability and representation in their own countries. They will hopefully overthrow dictatorships and cause the emergence of stable new nations based on western ideas of freedom and liberty. The inevitable free(ish) markets that then emerge provide plenty of trading opportunities for all (although more for some than others, of course).
And to talk about democracy being an alien creed is almost offensive after having seen those remarkable pictures of three extremely popular elections/referenda.
Mr Aldridge, do you equate the acceptance of democracy with some higher, intellectual and/or moral functioning? Is the suggestion that democracy is alien in some way to denigrate those who find it alien? I suspect you feel I am accusing those who are unfamiliar with - and, perhaps, suspicious of - democracy as suffering some lack of sophistication or decency or intellect. But I do not exalt democracy as you might do (although I certainly prefer it) and I recognise that other people's system have virtues too. If you live in a tribal village and are content with the way of life shared by your father, grandfather and his father before him then you are entitled to continue it.
The voting in Iraq isn't as wonderful as you suggest. The Sunnis boycotted the first election and only turned out to the second one because they saw the Shia'as grabbing advantage. And despite the voting Iraqis still gravitate towards tribal leaders, ethnic groupings and their own flavour of Islam. With it, comes rioting, suicide bombings and the desecration of mosques. Voting most certainly does not equal democracy.
Do you really want to turn your back on people who yearn for peace and freedom, and hand them over to the "stability" of Islamofascist thugs?
Well, there were no Islamofascist thugs before we turned up. True, there was Saddam but since we're not the world's social worker it was none of our business.
A very disappointing post.
I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. But I'm very glad you chose to articulate an alternative view. I like my views to be validated of course - I'm that vain - but I also like to learn from contrary ideas so thank you for taking the time.
Iran has a theocratic government - which, I must say, I consider to be dangerous in itself - and is in the process of developing technology which could be used to threaten this country.
Thats foolish and somewhat racist. I don't enjoy the idea of a theocracy, but its not dangerous per se. Iran are not vaguely near threatining the West (let alone the UK) except by intefering in their neighbour Iraq, which they are entitled to do. This nonsense of keeping Muslims in the stone age for security reasons is bollocks.
Israel will destroy any serious threats in Iran if and when they appear - they do have legitimate fears. Leave them to it.
You are on safer ground when suggesting Democracy may not be a solution in the Middle East. I think evidence supports this. Thats nothing to with Muslims: the largest democracy is India and that holds the third largest Muslim population.
Strong tribal and familial roots seem to work against the simpler democratic mechanics. But its purely an academic point, not a reason for invasion.
Thats foolish and somewhat racist. I don't enjoy the idea of a theocracy, but its not dangerous per se. Iran are not vaguely near threatining the West (let alone the UK) except by intefering in their neighbour Iraq, which they are entitled to do. This nonsense of keeping Muslims in the stone age for security reasons is bollocks.
Israel will destroy any serious threats in Iran if and when they appear - they do have legitimate fears. Leave them to it.
You are on safer ground when suggesting Democracy may not be a solution in the Middle East. I think evidence supports this. Thats nothing to with Muslims: the largest democracy is India and that holds the third largest Muslim population.
Strong tribal and familial roots seem to work against the simpler democratic mechanics. But its purely an academic point, not a reason for invasion.
Robert, I do not think our traditions are a "sham".
I believe that we must dig deep enough to comprehend and respond to the political realities so our incarnation of those values is a full informed and mature.
Just as in the manufacture of the Iraq WMD threat perceptions, so in the lead up to the second world war, commentators who understood "credit creation" and "money" monopoly along with the regular falsehoods of wartime propaganda could interpret and understand the strategies of power and manipulation of the public mind.
Just as Prime Minister Howard here in Australia spoke in the Australian Parliament of Saddam shredding his enemies in giant paper shredders many similar nonsensical lies were invented about Germany during the 2nd WW.
If billions of dollars could be directed towards promoting the Iraq propaganda and laws passed to silence critical examination then the propaganda takes on a reality though it may have no foundation in fact.
Auschwitz is the propaganda par excellence of modern history having established a false reality that is completely unsupported by any factual evidence.
Auschwitz is one of the most powerful advertising slogans ever created to sell a product and make profits for the owner of the product.
The product is power and control over the mind of the public.
The Auschwitz brand demands exclusive selling rights to the point that if you might like to explore an alternative you are hounded, persecuted and jailed.
The information we all received by official media and education is soaked in propaganda to the point of saturation.
Crisis and fear themes control and manipulate the consciousness of the public, excusing the tragedy of human effort, when our real potential and destiny is one of abundance, freedom and personality growth. This, it appears, is hardly glimpsed by most in the world today.
If we refuse to learn how the world really works, it is impossible to imagine that we will assist the hungry, homeless, lonely and persecuted beyond the emergency band-aids for the dispossessed
I certainly am not a scholar of the scriptures but "The Garden of Eden" fable points toward this choice of releasing and serving truth for reward or denying truth in the service of lies and harvesting the tragedy of human effort.
My interest in Auschwitz is not motivated by ghoulish or racist attitudes, but a belief that this subject is the best and most powerful example that can be examined to reveal the power propaganda strategies that attempt to govern all of our lives.
I believe that we must dig deep enough to comprehend and respond to the political realities so our incarnation of those values is a full informed and mature.
Just as in the manufacture of the Iraq WMD threat perceptions, so in the lead up to the second world war, commentators who understood "credit creation" and "money" monopoly along with the regular falsehoods of wartime propaganda could interpret and understand the strategies of power and manipulation of the public mind.
Just as Prime Minister Howard here in Australia spoke in the Australian Parliament of Saddam shredding his enemies in giant paper shredders many similar nonsensical lies were invented about Germany during the 2nd WW.
If billions of dollars could be directed towards promoting the Iraq propaganda and laws passed to silence critical examination then the propaganda takes on a reality though it may have no foundation in fact.
Auschwitz is the propaganda par excellence of modern history having established a false reality that is completely unsupported by any factual evidence.
Auschwitz is one of the most powerful advertising slogans ever created to sell a product and make profits for the owner of the product.
The product is power and control over the mind of the public.
The Auschwitz brand demands exclusive selling rights to the point that if you might like to explore an alternative you are hounded, persecuted and jailed.
The information we all received by official media and education is soaked in propaganda to the point of saturation.
Crisis and fear themes control and manipulate the consciousness of the public, excusing the tragedy of human effort, when our real potential and destiny is one of abundance, freedom and personality growth. This, it appears, is hardly glimpsed by most in the world today.
If we refuse to learn how the world really works, it is impossible to imagine that we will assist the hungry, homeless, lonely and persecuted beyond the emergency band-aids for the dispossessed
I certainly am not a scholar of the scriptures but "The Garden of Eden" fable points toward this choice of releasing and serving truth for reward or denying truth in the service of lies and harvesting the tragedy of human effort.
My interest in Auschwitz is not motivated by ghoulish or racist attitudes, but a belief that this subject is the best and most powerful example that can be examined to reveal the power propaganda strategies that attempt to govern all of our lives.
DE,
The west is a most obvious enemy of a Muslim theocracy - for a number of reasons - and a Muslim theocracy can throw up people fanatical enough to make use of the weapons they have. I personally would be very nervous about people who have no fear of death possessing the means to deal it on a grand scale.
Not wanting Iran to be armed with nuclear weapons is nothing to do with racism (an old chessnut I'm surprised to see you regressing to) nor is it part of a desire to see a particular religious credo kept in the stone-age. Good ol' fear of dying is the more prosaic motivation at work here.
And some opinion suggests Israel won't have the wherewithal to take out all Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities.
Would you be totally unconcerned by Iran's acsension to the nuclear weapons table?
The west is a most obvious enemy of a Muslim theocracy - for a number of reasons - and a Muslim theocracy can throw up people fanatical enough to make use of the weapons they have. I personally would be very nervous about people who have no fear of death possessing the means to deal it on a grand scale.
Not wanting Iran to be armed with nuclear weapons is nothing to do with racism (an old chessnut I'm surprised to see you regressing to) nor is it part of a desire to see a particular religious credo kept in the stone-age. Good ol' fear of dying is the more prosaic motivation at work here.
And some opinion suggests Israel won't have the wherewithal to take out all Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities.
Would you be totally unconcerned by Iran's acsension to the nuclear weapons table?
Gary, Iran is not remotely close to production of nuclear weapons.
Having been duped about Iraq, is it possible that the same people could spin you again and have you line up in support of another murderous adventure in favour of the policy of Monopoly.
Iran is seeking to develop the ability to generate power from nuclear energy.
Many countries have nuclear energy.
How much of what we have been told about life in Iran is in fact true?
The same sources of information led you up the garden path on Iraq.
The Iranian government is the first to officially challenge the Auschwitz "gassing" legend indicating to me these people have far greater sanity than Bush, Blair, Howard and the millions of ignorant in the western world who believe themselves to be smart and intelligent while their whole lives are dominated and controlled by "money" trickery and propaganda lies.
In my view the jury is still out on who gets the awards for ignorance and blind faith towards the dogma of their high priests.
Having been duped about Iraq, is it possible that the same people could spin you again and have you line up in support of another murderous adventure in favour of the policy of Monopoly.
Iran is seeking to develop the ability to generate power from nuclear energy.
Many countries have nuclear energy.
How much of what we have been told about life in Iran is in fact true?
The same sources of information led you up the garden path on Iraq.
The Iranian government is the first to officially challenge the Auschwitz "gassing" legend indicating to me these people have far greater sanity than Bush, Blair, Howard and the millions of ignorant in the western world who believe themselves to be smart and intelligent while their whole lives are dominated and controlled by "money" trickery and propaganda lies.
In my view the jury is still out on who gets the awards for ignorance and blind faith towards the dogma of their high priests.
Would you be totally unconcerned by Iran's acsension to the nuclear weapons table?
Fairly unconcerned. Unless they suddenly developed serious rocketry skills, and an American taste for bombing strategies I would be fairly unmoved.
Fairly unconcerned. Unless they suddenly developed serious rocketry skills, and an American taste for bombing strategies I would be fairly unmoved.
I don't see how Gary's comment
Iran has a theocratic government - which, I must say, I consider to be dangerous in itself - and is in the process of developing technology which could be used to threaten this country.
could possibly be perceived as racist.
The mind boggles.
I also consider theocracies dangerous, and I say this as a Christian.
Any government which gets it mandate from a supernatural power and not from the people it governs, is dangerous.
Their consciences will always justify whatever they do, be it good or bad, as being "God's Will".
What happens to the people who belong to an alternative religion and who disagree with the way they are governed? There is no room for pluralism in a theocracy either.
Post a Comment
Iran has a theocratic government - which, I must say, I consider to be dangerous in itself - and is in the process of developing technology which could be used to threaten this country.
could possibly be perceived as racist.
The mind boggles.
I also consider theocracies dangerous, and I say this as a Christian.
Any government which gets it mandate from a supernatural power and not from the people it governs, is dangerous.
Their consciences will always justify whatever they do, be it good or bad, as being "God's Will".
What happens to the people who belong to an alternative religion and who disagree with the way they are governed? There is no room for pluralism in a theocracy either.
<< Home
