A.J.Rimmer Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Joking aside, I actually think Tony Blair did believe what he was saying. I think his intelligence was poor but he actually believed it in good faith that Saddam was a threat and if the war would remove a brutal dictator as well then all the better. You really do have a low opinion of Tony Blair's intelligence if you think that. If you look back at the things for which Blair campaigned in the 80's, then later jettisoned in order to win elections, you'll see that he was a complete idiot, with the most appallingly bad judgement.... not to mention he was a God squader, like his friend Bush. In fact his only redeeming feature was his nice smiley face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Believing the Afghans will become democrats is like believing lions will become vegetarians. I know it's taking this off topic but I just thought I'd link this story to what you have just said: What can one say? At the risk of sounding like a clever dick, I spent my working life dealing with such people, and couldn't have misunderstood them that much, as I made a pretty fair living out of them. They have a wholly different value system to ours... anyone thinking otherwise is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 You can't force a population to choose liberalism but you can give them the oppostunity to do so. Why? Liberalism is a very western concept. invading a country to bring them what you or I would regard as democracy "because we know best" is a bit like invading a country to bring them Christianity because its "the one true faith" and done for largely the same condescending "civilising" reasons. I think you are confusing the will of the people with the will of their rulers. The option to chose a brutal dictatorship is always is better than no choice at all. Invading a country to "bring them christianity" is not about giving the people a free will to chose. It is about replacing one set of rules with another, so your example is flawed. Overthrowing a dictatorship who are killing its people and then giving the people the choice to decide if they want to go back to that way or choose another is a different thing again and I can't see how you could argue with the principle. The population might like being oppressed, fine you would be right and the option is there for them to go back to that. But what if they don't? The uprisings in Burma suggest they don't. The riots in Zimbabwe suggest they don't. Even the protests of the women in the artical above suggest they don't, in that example there are now female MP's who get a say and can amend the bill to help protect their elected representatives. Human rights should be just that. Rights for all humans, not just the ones lucky enough to have been born in places with tolerant rulers. It is a cop out to say "Those people are beyond our help even if they want it because thats just the way things are". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Believing the Afghans will become democrats is like believing lions will become vegetarians. And, at the end of the day, why should we expect them to? Or the Iraqis? Or any of the "non democratic nations"? Maybe there is more to politics than liberalism. Sure, it works for us more or less, but we have a long liberal tradition, going back 200 years or more. Even so, for most of those 200 years we excluded one group or another from our "democracy". Maybe expecting cultures where they dont have that liberal tradition to suddenly just accept that philosophy overnight and understand how to implement it effectively is being just a tad condescending? Who gave us the right to decide what's right and wrong? My Dear Fellow, I entirely agree with you. You are making my point exactly. Let these people get on with raping their wives, stoning their daughters to death and blowing eack other up. They like it. But if their fingerprint is found on one bomb in London or New York, then POW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerlad Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 My Dear Fellow, I entirely agree with you. You are making my point exactly. Let these people get on with raping their wives, stoning their daughters to death and blowing eack other up. They like it. But if their fingerprint is found on one bomb in London or New York, then POW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmie Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I answered with Iraq where is that?? as im currently on the border of yes and no, yes it was good no saddam lives saved a country is now potentially better off!! no it was bad as it wasnt our war to fight! our boys have lost lives! lies were told for it to happen!! Yes all black and white in my eyes before start saying it aint black and white! x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Democracy is very, very hard to export. John Stuart Mill indeed had a point when he said democracy has to be achieved from within. I certainly believe that it is possible for Iraqis and Afghans to achieve democracy at some point in the future, but the democratic 'revolution' hardly seems imminent. For that reason alone, going to war in Iraq especially was a bad idea altogether, However, I could've had some sympathy for it if the cause was to remove Saddam for humanitarian reasons. I'm not in principle entirely against the idea of humanitarian intervention. Afghanistan is justifiable and does have a clear UN mandate, however the problems seem to have been vastly underestimated. Now, back to Iraq, indeed Saddam was removed. And maybe in the long, long, long term, Iraq will b a better place to be born and live your life. However, the war was based on lies, lies, utter lies and fabrications. I do believe the oil aspect is slightly overrated, however there's no doubting Bush and his cronies had a lot to gain from this war, economically and politically. Nothing like a good old war to win the next election, and let's give the contract to Haliburton while we're at it eh? Even if it's true removing Saddam was a nice side effect, there's no justifying the sacrifice of thousands and thousands of lives for lies, lies and utter lies. It's an illegal war and those responsible for it should be heavily sactioned against. I voted 'no'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 My Dear Fellow, I entirely agree with you. You are making my point exactly. Let these people get on with raping their wives, stoning their daughters to death and blowing eack other up. They like it. But if their fingerprint is found on one bomb in London or New York, then POW! I think you must have misunderstood me, because I certainly wouldn't agree with your last sentence, and I certainly dont agree with your second sentence. Probably there is some irony that isnt coming over, its been a long day, so apologies if I missed the joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The option to chose a brutal dictatorship is always is better than no choice at all. That is absolutely true in our society, our culture, our political tradition. no arguments from me. I'm not sure what right we have to forcibly export this though I can see certain humanitarian situations where certain specific rulers need to be brought to justice for crimes against humanity. There is indeed a court established in The Hague for exactly this purpose. I think you can make a case for taking action against a ruler who can be charged with such crimes, as long as you have a UN sanction to do so, and as long as the aim is the protection of the people and the ruler in question ends up on trial at the International court This is radically different to the express desire to "bring democracy" to a country. We have no right to do so. you or I might be 100% certain that democracy is the right way to run a country, well thats fine, lets run our country like that. We have no rights to inflict our standards on the wider world Overthrowing a dictatorship who are killing its people and then giving the people the choice to decide if they want to go back to that way or choose another is a different thing again and I can't see how you could argue with the principle. My objection is that just because we have the power the intervene doesnt give us the right to. My objection is that we should be extremely wary of judging the values and morals of other cultures by our own. Human rights should be just that. Rights for all humans, not just the ones lucky enough to have been born in places with tolerant rulers. It is a cop out to say "Those people are beyond our help even if they want it because thats just the way things are". Well you see, with all due respect, your attitude smacks a little of that old colonial paternalism. it is quite similar in many ways to the attitude of the Victorians who felt that, for example, Africans were essentially incapable of ruling themselves, and that they needed European assistance to reach their true potential;that without Europeans they would never be civilised. There are still people who think Africans are incapable of self governance now. Isnt the Iraq war just an extension of this? Look, these people need our help to create a real proper civilised government, we will intervene, overthrow their current leader (who was indisputably a terrible man and a mass murderer) and implement a form of governance which will encourage things like "free market trading", and other things of beebnfit to ourselves and our nation - what is euphemistically called "the national interest"? You know, the Victorians, apart from bringing God to the poor child like savages, also brought trade. indeed, one of the leaders of the sack of Benin in 1897 said that jesus and trade were the same thing. Benin is an interesting parallel with Iraq, because the leader was undoubtedly a despot, the city was known as the "city of blood" because of the massed human sacrifices and fetish worship, and the (rather brief and one sided) war was portrayed in the London Illustrated News as being about bringing civilisation and liberty to the poor people. And while we're here, if we loot some treasures, well, thats justifiable. While we're here, if it helps to open a trade route to the interior, well thats a bonus too. The main thing is, the people will, in the long run, benefit from our being here. In nigeria they are still waiting, 112 years later, for that benefit to arrive. lets hope it doesnt take that long in Iraq, but I wouldnt hold my breath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 ^^I fully understand the argument you (PB) propound and in the most part I agree. Where I find a difficulty is with the precision with which you appear to draw a line between cultures. Where and how are these lines drawn? On national boundaries? On religious boundaries? On hemispherical boundaries? I think you make some excellent points and I have a huge sympathy for the point of view which questions the validity of impositions of values but, as you have been consistent about looking at discussions on a philosophical basis, I think that to rely upon a rather loose and non-global cultural analysis leaves your arguments open to attack by asking where the cultural boundaries lie within your definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAZZAM Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 was it worth it? youll have to ask the iraqi people that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree with snowychap. The whole idea of nations is totally abitary and abstract from a human rights perspective. Why are lines drawn on maps and people within one set of lines are able to be sent aid or their leaders held acountable if they commit atocities and human rights abuses but other groups of people on the wrong side of those lines are afforded no such securities. We are all human beings. We all deserve human rights. The idea that we should allow one group of women (to take a common example) in one section of the world to be abused because it's not our country is something I am not going to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Many lives have been lost in a war instigated on lies lies lies, we've murdered and tortured. And what for? I think Iraq may well be a much worse place to live for many years to come as a result of this. The region will be less stable and terrorist organisations have and will continue to use it as a perfect propaganda tool to recruit and grow. A knock on effect is that many of our own civil liberties in the west are being eroded as democratic values are sidestepped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree with snowychap. The whole idea of nations is totally abitary and abstract from a human rights perspective. Why are lines drawn on maps and people within one set of lines are able to be sent aid or their leaders held acountable if they commit atocities and human rights abuses but other groups of people on the wrong side of those lines are afforded no such securities. We are all human beings. We all deserve human rights. The idea that we should allow one group of women (to take a common example) in one section of the world to be abused because it's not our country is something I am not going to support. I fully agree with all of that, and Snowy's post as well. Like I said previously, I'm not entirely opposed to the humanitarian inervention as a just reason for war. However, the consolidation of human rights in a country ha to established on a basis of a strong movement of the people. The people have to believe in, and be ready to protect, democracy and human rights. You can't expect to export human rights with war, declare democracy, put a 'made in the USA' stamp on it and expect it to work by itself. And as for Iraq, we're a long way from liberal democracy there aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Just a normal week..... # Saturday: 8 Iraqis Killed, 33 Wounded # Sunday: 26 Iraqis Killed, 28 Wounded # Monday: 9 Iraqis Killed, 32 Wounded # Tuesday: 18 Iraqis Killed, 27 Wounded # Wednesday: 8 Iraqis, 8 Iranians Killed # Thursday: 17 Iraqis Killed, 63 Wounded # Friday: 37 Iraqis Killed, 156 Wounded Just another week bringing freedom to the world. And will the whitewash inquiry cover the aftermath that the perpetrators have bestowed upon the natives or does the empire once again look away whilst the failed colony disintegrates whilst the empire concentrates on the control and supply of the drugs instead of the control and supply of oil now that the big four now have their contracts in place. It's a shame that most on here aren't religious as there are a few people that should be burning in hell for the harm they have caused to people and to the planet they inhabit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 No. The US failed to justify their reason for going into the region, and they failed to do whatever the hell they wanted to do properly. I'm currently reading 'The Great War for Civilisation' by Robert Fisk, who is an Independent / ex-Times journo who has been based in the Middle East for the past 30 years or so. If you're interested in the history of the Middle East, I highly recommend it, he has some fantastic experiences. On to a chapter about the Iran-Iraq war. Part of the Iraqi offensive was to gas the Iranians in a way that hasn't been seen since WWI, and not seen in the past 25 years. At one point, they actually gassed an entire town of Kurdish civilians, killing over 5,000 innocent citizens, because they were supposedly conspiring with Iranian forces. As the author notes, the same amount of people were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001, but when Saddam gassed his own citizens (although it's debatable how far the Kurds saw themselves as Iraqi), none of the world's biggest powers spoke out about it. It has practically been airbrushed from history. The US completely supported and aided Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. They were partly responsible for all of his atrocities. Saddam was a terrible human being, and fully deserved to be ousted. But that was far from the minds of the Allied forces when Gulf Mk II began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Re: Kurd gassing - I wouldn't say it's been airbrushed from history - it has been raised by many (right wing) people who support the war, regardless of the fact that their side were arming saddam at the time. And the term partly responsible is a little weak - they armed saddam because they wanted to defeat iran - no measures were not to be out of range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heystally! Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Re: Kurd gassing - I wouldn't say it's been airbrushed from history - it has been raised by many (right wing) people who support the war, regardless of the fact that their side were arming saddam at the time. And the term partly responsible is a little weak - they armed saddam because they wanted to defeat iran - no measures were not to be out of range. Fair points. At the time the gassing was airbrushed, because the Western powers ignored it. But as you say, it's been raised since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 no, i believe the reasons behind it were false as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knoppy1987 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 We will see when the exact oil figures are issued Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts