Oi, all you disgruntled liberals - over 'ere!

[monkeytrousers]

Intersting to learn that Blair wan not in fact Bush's poodle at all; more the other way around!

Something to help you get excited about progressive liberalism again!!

?Blair?s position has been more constant than many of his critics suppose. In many respects it has been admirable. Long before 9/11, Blair abandoned the conservative ?realism? ?more accurately moral quietism ? ((which almost had it indicted in the human rights courts)) that had characterised John Major?s foreign policies. Rather than acquiescing in Serb aggression ((as Major et al did)), Blair confronted it. Out of humanitarian obligation and an awareness that failed states breed fanaticism, he sent British troops to preserve Sierra Leone from hand-lopping rebels. Iraq was notr the biggest blunder since Suez: it was the most far sighted and noble act iof British foreign policy since the founding of Nato. Blair?s record exemplifies foreign policy ?with an ethical dimension?.

Before the election, bien-pensant academics asserted that a vote for Blair was a vote for Bush. The reverse was true: President Bush, who was a candidate in the presidential election of 2000 had denounced interventionist ?nation-building?, adopted by Blairism. After 9/11, Bush?s instinctive conservatism gave way to promoting global democracy as our defence against theocratic barbarism ? a strategy that accords with traditional liberal-democratic internationalism.?

Oliver Kamm - Anti-Totalitarianism The Left Wing Case for a Neoconservative foreign policy.

It?s only about 100 pages long!

And I am in the middle - a wavering lefty liberral that is having their comfort zones chellenged.

CDA- Saddams atrocitites against Kurds and anyone that disagreed with him was very much an ongoing thing

I think there might be a misunderstanding about what I, and the people I am quoting, stand for. This is not about abandioning liberal values, just readressing them in the era we find ourselves in.

There was a thread recently asking if you had cecome more conservative as you got older. It is true, we do all get more covertous of what we have as we get older and want to protect that - but there is no need to go the whole hog and abandon liberal values and become a full scale Tory.

I had thought the term 'neo-conservative' was a euphamism for 'ultra-conservative' which is how the media here presented them as. On reading up what it means, nothing could be further from the truth!

Neo-conservatives (simply 'new' conservatives) are made up of liberals - the conservative bit is about having a declared self interest that isn't somehow seen as selfish or tyraniocal or a 'neo-colonial' attitude. In taking pride in our liberal values and defening them passionately against less liberal and tolerant cultures. Its about finding a middle ground betwen 'bleeding heart liberalism' which has been found to be self-defeating and the right.

To try and stop people thinking they have no other option but to go to the right when they see the very real faults in bleeding heart liberalism.

Let us agree that (1) brutal regimes are known to kill dissidents (2) all states enjoy legitimate use of force in their own territory (this is the definition of a 'state'), and hence, (3) other countries can't invade just because a ruler kills dissidents.

re "What do you think Saddam had done to the Kurds?" and "Saddams atrocitites against Kurds and anyone that disagreed with him was very much an ongoing thing"

I was living in Turkey at the time Saddam gassed Kurds in the North of Iraq. Thousands died at once. Many more ran. Turkey opened its borders and set up a refugee camp that housed, at one point, 200,000 Kurds.

Then there was the Anfal campaign that killed/disappeared an estimated 100,000 Kurds in Iraq, which lasted 7 months. If UN interfered then, it would have my blessing. There was humanitarian urgency, and the human cost of war would have been justified.

In contrast, there was no such urgency in pre-invasion Iraq. Yes, Saddam and his family were a nasty bunch who held the country in a tight grip. Yes, there were deaths and tortures. As in numerous other countries - Pakistan, Iran, Syria etc. Yet these countries are not being invaded. Why?

MT - You do read funny books

I realize the humour is not that obvious to you because you take their word for gospel.

Those questions are addressed in these books.

And please do me the justice of assuming I am not a po-faced indoctrine.

If you had read these books yourself you might actually know what I mean and how to accuse me of taking 'their' word as gospel is juat ridiculous.

The debate is ongoing andf emergent. It is abotu ideas, progessive ideas not doctrine.

You cant criticise books you have not read.

If my post is answered so well in your books, why don't you write this 'answer' down like a good disciple?

It is rather unreasonable of you to expect me to read your myriad books because you can't be bothered (or just can't?) answer me yourself.

It isn't my job to educate you. I don't post on here just for you and thank god, some people actually are interetsed in getting a broader perspective on things and do read up for themselves and come to their own educated opinion. If you don't want to read any of the books - don't.

You make it sound as if asking someone to read a book to empower themselves with facts instead of fantasies is a bad thing. Who would have thought such a thing would come to pass in a debate about the wider issues of free speech and liberty. How ironic.

If you want to disagree with the arguments in full, familiarise yourself with them. Why would you even trust me to furnish you with the particulars, since you think I am so unskeptical of it all - again though how you can come to that opinion after reading my posts and also seeing the journey I have been on with regard to this issue over the last year, is beyond me.

Hmmm, thought provoking stuff indeed, however I don't think the problem is that we went to war, although I will admit to thinking that at the time. It's more that there seemed no real master plan besides bomb the feckers into submission and hope they give up. And I do think the waters are muddied by the fact that the US in particular have used it as a money making initiative, witness all the re building contracts etc.

Dispatches channel 4 now

Well that's all I've ever asked for RH, a bit of thought on the matter - for me as well as others so I have someone to work it out with.

I say something, you say something back. That is called a discussion and it is what these forums are here for.

I say something, you tell me to go read books. That is... bizarre and sadly shows that you are not capable of debating this subject on your own.

[Maybe you should read some more books.]

A heartfelt belly laugh at your thinking you could 'educate' me, though

You have been posting about the 'knowledge' you gather from these books on the Iraq conflict for a while now. Sadly, you tend to read ideological stuff rather than historical books which would at least give you a factual background. Maybe that is why your 'understanding' of the region and the present conflict does not go beyond "I read this in this book".

at the arrogance of assuming that reading a couple of books made you an authority of the subject, so much so that you call 'ignorant' someone who has lived in the region most of her life and has followed the issues since her childhood.

If all you wanted is a bit of thought on the matter, why don't you think and post an answer to my post of 9:00:15?

aw, did this really have to get nasty this quickly?

it's a v. interesting topic (sadly brain is mush so will have to come back to it later)

You were great in eXistenZ

yes wasn't I? my career's gone downhill since then though

[sorry MT for de-intellectualising your v. interesting thread!]

But it's by Oliver. I went to Oxford with him. We used to be in the same CND group, but he was much more pompous than me. I simply cannot take him seriously, sorry, he still gets on my wick 25 years later.

FFS Cote, read my posts - I have said repeatedly that I am trying to work it out, educate myself, and would like to discuss it with people who want to also - a bit like a book club. You can't do that with someone who is refusing to read the book.

I have no idea what you think I want to discuss. What I'd love to do it get it somewhere above the level of sixth form politics.

And I am getting sick of your cheap shots and adhominem attacks. They do nothing but reveal the weakness of your argument - not that you have one short of misunderstanding and disagreeing with everything I say - for what reason only you will know. I wouldn't respond to such baiting in real life so why should I do it on here?

MN is obviously not the place it used to be for complex discussions. That is a real shame.

SW, I wonder sometimes if this is a consequence of the media trying to analise the news rather than simply report it. A consensus seems to have been agreed within the media, that Blair was Bush's "poodle" when in actual fact, Blair seems to have been the prime mover behind the war, not holding Bush back, but having to convince him to go in and crucually, stay in to help 'nation build' which was something the Bush administration were publically against before the war.

The complexity of these events is fascinating, we can only ever see the tip of the iceberg - but in this case it seems to have been the wrong one!

on my wick

Lovely phrase!

It is fascinating that you start these topics and then don't answer the replies. Why start the discussion if you are not going to talk on the subject?

It is a subject I would be interested to discuss. Why not answer my post and we'll go from there:

--------
By CoteDAzur on Sun 16-Mar-08 09:00:15

Let us agree that (1) brutal regimes are known to kill dissidents (2) all states enjoy legitimate use of force in their own territory (this is the definition of a 'state'), and hence, (3) other countries can't invade just because a ruler kills dissidents.

re "What do you think Saddam had done to the Kurds?" and "Saddams atrocitites against Kurds and anyone that disagreed with him was very much an ongoing thing"

I was living in Turkey at the time Saddam gassed Kurds in the North of Iraq. Thousands died at once. Many more ran. Turkey opened its borders and set up a refugee camp that housed, at one point, 200,000 Kurds.

Then there was the Anfal campaign that killed/disappeared an estimated 100,000 Kurds in Iraq, which lasted 7 months. If UN interfered then, it would have my blessing. There was humanitarian urgency, and the human cost of war would have been justified.

In contrast, there was no such urgency in pre-invasion Iraq. Yes, Saddam and his family were a nasty bunch who held the country in a tight grip. Yes, there were deaths and tortures. As in numerous other countries - Pakistan, Iran, Syria etc. Yet these countries are not being invaded. Why?
-------

By the way, it is rather rich of you to accuse me of ad hominem, after having accused me of ignorance because I am not interested in reading your precious book on Tony Blair