 Login
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi |
 |
No RESPECT from Dominic HiltonPosts: Joined: 2003-02-08
It is a shame that Dominic Hilton's diatribe on the Bethnal Green campaign dipped into soundbite nonsense so frequently.
How interesting that he calls RESPECT ultra hard left or some such thing. This when it does not even carry a clause four type policy still clung on to by Labour in the 70s.
I can vouch for several RESPECT acquaintances that are neither Muslim or members of the SWP. That notion is the call of liberals who would rather we merely vote tactically and push our morals and ideals into our back pockets. Let's vote Labour to stop the tories. Let's vote Lib Dem however many about turns they make in the same sentence. Lets march against this war and then vote for the weasels who raised their cowardly arms to endorse it.
If people demand a new type of politics it is because what we had was not representative, on which i believe Mr Hilton agrees.
Like it or note, RESPECT is not the old left or the islamic right. It is a post-fordist reaction to the realities of the global village. old style socialists can sit down with those of faith - because somewhere along the line some realised that progress cannot be limited to those of limited credentials. only a cohesive approach will challenge the machine our ancestors beqeathed us. whether RESPECT knows it or not - it has the opportunity to mesh the collective understanding that grows for every new person that peers beneath the surface. the multiple modes of destruction humanity face need a pluralist and determined response. all that is needed is for the technology that connects us to outstrip that which can divide an destroy us.
as for the economic forces at work - the cyclical nature of global business must be considered in line with extreme population expansion and the leech of multinational military industry. to seek to balance obscene wealth with hopeless poverty is not the reserve of the hard left, for certain. the stimulants of sustained economic growth include consistent education and hence ability for domestic innovation. something, for example, which is inexplicably eroded in so called developed nations like the UK as governments introduce a market for higher education. allowing the wealthy to be educated beyond their intelligence and brighter, poorer sparks to sweep streets like good little proles. it makes very bad business sense.
it is easy to pose questions about (or throw baseless unsults at) the birth of a new, and successful political force. but perhaps Mr Hilton might suggest what HE would do instead.
Message was edited by: maz2003
Submitted on Sat, 2005-05-14 19:29
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
Nice to hear from you again.
Just to say that while I have reservations about George Galloway as a politician, I do admire his spunk and the way he wades into the pompous Blair, who I detest.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly nice to hear from u too.
surely the only way one can have less than ocean wide reservations about a politician is to stand as a 'representative' oneself.
but unfortunately polticians seem to maginify the basest elements of human nature thousand fold, as well they might having played every trick on the masses to secure the relative power they hold.
and we can but speculate as to our own potential immunity against this trend.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
Your friends are riding in a machine which runs on stolen gas--stolen from the Food-For-Petrol program.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn - a side to that u may not have heard:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=779
he will be over the pond in a couple of days...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4549913.stm
funny how the bastions of democracy and freedom dont even give people a chance to enter a plea or even challenge an accusation before a verdict is levied. hilarious, indeed.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
Mr. Galloway will be as welcome in Washington as he was in Baghdad. No one ever refused to give him his day. That is just his own personal spin-- accuse the accusers. You seem to have fallen for it. My condolences.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn - can't wait to see the 'hearing' tomoro.
if you think he was allowed to put his case before these allegations were made then it is you who are deluded. or perhaps you can google me some evidence that he was invited to testify before the report was published and prove me wrong? - because all i have read is to the contrary.
i wonder if there is a precedent for compensation from this kind of committee cos gg seems rather good at getting people to say sorry in dollars when they libel him
btw brolly was it the eighties when new labour dropped clause four? i am a little suspicious of the historical fact i have quoted
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
The investigating committee has been open to the public for some time.
Dollars?
If proven, would Mr. Galloway cough up anything?
www.timesonline.co.uk has a complete story. Testimony from Tarik Aziz and Saddam VP Taha Ramadan as well as new documentation are available for Mr. Galloway to challenge.
It should be a good cockfight.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
I think it was Neil Kinnock that got Clause Four dropped but I am not sure either. If it was Kinnock, it would have been in the 1980's.
I think Gorgeous George ran rings around the Republican Senator on Tuesday. The Democratic Senator Lieven, was much less abrasive than his committee colleague.
These Senators are no match for a Westminster debating bruiser. They looked really flimsy by comparison.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
Mr. Galloway was abrasive and evasive. Accusing the accusers is nothing new. He made his denials as expected, but his testimony did not refute the evidence of testimony from Tarik Aziz and others at the Iraqi Oil Ministry and records found there. The trials of Aziz, Saddam and others will be enlightening.
"Webster debating bruiser"? I think the gentlemen of the senate have heard worse blowhards.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn,
Your silly Senator Coleman, has nothing on George Galloway. He's beaten smarter people than Coleman in British Courts in libel actions.
If they had anything substantial, then they would have produced it as irrefutable and we know that they couldn't.
Ttrry, your country was involved in the oil for food scandal, right up to Dick Cheney's eyeballs and worse.
Why don't you recognize that your country is engaged on a foreign policy that puts its oil supply beyond any other considerations. Does Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt mean anything to you.Places where torture take place all the time.
No doubt,you will justify the end ( the so-called 'war on terror') as being more important than the means, every time. DO you speak with your tongue in your cheek all the time? It appears so to anyone that reads your posts.
As for your Senators, I don't think much of the present crop with a few notable exceptions such as Harry Byrd.
But you will no doubt ridicule him too.
As you support corrupt and evil political practices, there must be a strain of the same running through you.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Brolly, play the ball, not the man. Or whatever.
Georgeous George is not my cup of tea as a person and certainly not as a politician. He's far too far to the left for my liking. Nonetheless, I sincerely doubt that he's been playing the oil market with Saddam's markers. For one thing, it would appear not to be his style, and, for another, if he had then MI6 would know about it - you can't move money around in this country without someone knowing about it - and the Labour Party would have had no compunction at all about using it against him during the election campaign.
I work in the financial sector and I know that even using off-shore havens doesn't work any more. Computers are good at moving money around, but they're not so good at hiding the movements.
And I'd give any information from Tariq Aziz the entire bag of salt ... he'll be looking to "help" his captors.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Capfka,
OK, so I blew my top over ttrry's posting. This SOB will not admit to any hypocrisy on the part of his neocon government as far as the oil for food scandal or anything else is concerned.
I take your point about George Galloway being on safe ground, because he would have been exposed long ago if Blair could have found unimpeachable evidence to sustain such a charge. No doubt Ttrry will be afraid to criticise your opinion in this regard because he doesn't have anything to offer of any substance to challenge it.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Re: Democracy in Iran
I'm crushed. You beg me and beg me to give it to you and when I do, you stopped calling.
I feel used.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn,
["The easiest way to cut throgh Mr. Galloway's bluster, and yours, if for Mr. Galloway to audit his books and the books of the Respect Party and his charity. Wouldn't you agree?"]
I would have thought that as an American you should be more worried by the statement made by George Galloway and acknowledged by Senator Levin (I saw him nod his head in assent when Galloway spoke of it) about the Eight Billion Dollars of missing oil revenues since the US occupied Baghdad. Which books do you suggest should be audited in this case? Or are you only interested in allegations that do not concern the US, as appears to
be the case.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Acutally, that's a good idea for the people of Iraq and the people of Greata Britain.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
While we're waiting for everybody's books, clique onto MEMRITV. It shows highlights of arab Television. It includes non-sensical arab logic from clerics, confessions of arab terrorists in Iraq who kidnap innocent people off the street for "slaughter". Do they do it for Iraq, or Allah. They do it for money from Saddam holdouts and Syrian Intelligence to forment unrest. It also has entertainment. There's a lovely drama that shows Israelis stealing the eyes out of Palestinian children to transplant into Jewish children. I wonder if George Galloway wrote the script.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Great idea! Let's get the DVD of this arab drama showing Israelis taking the eyes of Palestinian Children to transplant to Jewish Children and send it to George for his birthday. He'd love it.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn,
It's difficult to know if what you need is a slap on the nose, or a sedative.
Any chance you could tone down the sarcasm? Your last comment way overstepped the line of decency. Not that you would have noticed.
Gaea
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
galaco,
Rhetoric about the US Senate and its' members are considered free speech while equal rhetoric about George Galloway is considered sarcasm?
Not very cricket.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
Ttrryosbonr will never be able to match your power of argument and eloquence. You can expect another of his curt one liners, which will be unrelated to the points you have made and which are purely diversionary, as he isn't able to compete at your level of debate.
It is a case of an elephant gun shooting the Ttrryosborn fly.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Good for you to encourage maz2003.
He needs all the help he can get.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn,
["Blustering is often a smoke screen for what lies behind. a person who wants the truth will cut through the smoke. A person who is afraid to find out will not".]
You assert George Galloway is a blusterer, then hasten to say that his remarkss were a smoke screen. What if I totally reject your assertion, after all it is only YOUR subjective view, and say that George merely spoke his mind. Then the rest of your little homily falls apart.
The only blusterer around these parts is yourself with your own patented form of doing it.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Tell you what. You stay on your side of the smoke screen and I'll stay on mine.
One of your own compatriots on this forum referred to Mr. Galloway as the Westminster Debate brawler.
You think I'm a tough debater?
Gee, thanks.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn,
To single George Galloway out as the Westminster Brawler is to do an injustice to all the other brawlers that
inhabit the place, including Blair, who is one of the biggest.
Our Parliament is quite different from the genteel atmosphere of the Senate and quite frankly we have a lot of ruffians here, who would be thrown out of the Senate, if they ever were let into the place.
None of Galloway's debating skills or whatever you would call them, detracts from the fact that what he says is about Blair is true. Blair surrounded himself with toadies ( he chose them as Cabinet Ministers precisely because they are a subservient bunch, who would not challenge his authority). Not one of them is worth a second glance as they are all arse crawlers.
Not all of our Prime Ministers were so insecure as is Blair, that they chose second rate Cabinet colleagues.
Clement Attlee, Labour Prime Minister from 1945 - 1951 and one of the best, surrounded himself with men of equal stature and parliament was all the better for it.
Harold Wilson , another Labour Prime Minister, had the guts to stand up to Lyndon Johnson and resist his pressure for us to join the Vietnam fiasco. Blair was frankly out of his depth with the brash but friendly Bush, who overawed him with his direct Texan manner.
Blair is a sucker for anyone who seems to him to be powerful. He fawns in front of business tycoons and he was never going to risk arguing too much with George W.
because Blair is basically a moral coward, despite the credit he is given for political courage. He was determined to be seen on the world stage,as the only foreign politician who could influence Bush but when it came to it, he never proposed anything that he thought George would not buy. Blair's desire for the reflected glory of standing alongside the most powerful man in the world and the fact that he has such a weak cabinet who would not get in his way, led him to support the war.
Galloway has certainly got Blair figured out and also the Bush administration with its neocon ideologues, that will eventually set the world against the US, unless their influence fades away.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Another brit referred to the GG as a Westminster Brawler. I was just quoting him.
Something curious:
On the one hand you write that Blair is "one of the biggest" brawlers in Westminster, and then you change course and say he's "insecure". If you're this "insecure" about your opinion of Blair, why should anyone have confidence in the rest of your opinions?
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
This might interest:
US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
The Guardian
I have little time for Mr Galloway. He remains disturbingly uncritical of the Iraqi Insurgency, and his sycophantic fawning towards Saddam Hussein (which he admittedly regrets) leave a sour taste in the mouth. Not to mention the fact that he claims the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the biggest catastrophe of my life".
However, these US hearings are little more than a farce. If Galloway had traded in oil, then someone would have known, as I believe Capfka has already pointed out. Given the amount of mud thrown at the man and the party during the elections, even the slightest hint of corruption would have been seized on. The US Government knew about the oil purchases. It's simply using this as an excuse to hit out at the UN for not supporting the war.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
ttrryosborn,
You are a lousy psychologist. GG is a brawler in terms of his being a tough Scottish working class lad who dragged himself up the ladder from low level work in a factory and into parliament. He is secure in the sense that he was toughened up by his origins and the obstacles he had to overcome. Blair on the other hand went to a private school and then Oxford and then via a relatively short leal carrer into politics. He was interested in dramatics in school and he is a first class actor at the desptach box in Parliament but he has to be the focus of attention.He cannot function well if he is challenged and is contemptuous of any disagreement with him. He will pay lip service and claim he respects other opinions but he doesn't listen. This is a reaction to his insecurity because he has to believe himself right all the time, otherwise his ego would collapse and reveal the side that he masks from himself as well as the world.
Blair cannot function well unless he dominates and in this sense he bralws when he addresses the oppostion and dismisses his own critics. If you like brawler may not have been the best word to use in reference to him.
Perhaps tyrant would be better, as this does not depend on decibels but attitude.However anyone that attempts to be centre stage in all that he does can be called a Westminster brawler. In other words there are different varieties with different attributes. Galloway happens to be an excellent and eloquent debater and this can be inaccurately referred to as being a brawler by some parliament watchers.
Ttrryosborn, you try to pick up on every word and rather than appreciating the thrust of the argument being made, you are always looking for the minor inconsistencies of language. Your own arguments are riven with illogicality and unwarranted assumptions but of course you either don't mind or probably don't notice it.
Believe me friend, if you think that my alleged inconsistencies make my views suspect, then you should have abdicated a long time ago, as yours are hardly worth the time you obviously waste.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
A lousy psychologist? I notice you're the one using paperback analyses of Galloway and Blair. You findings couldn't be slanted, could they?
I don't appreciate the thrust of your arguments? Wow, you read me like a book-- or a psychologist.
I think your inconsistencies make your views suspect? Well, if the shoe fits.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn,
["I don't appreciate the thrust of your arguments?"]
You wouldn't appreciate the point of any argument, even if it fell on top of your head. I have no more interest in discussing anything whatsoever with you. You are a spoiler, not a debater.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
owly said:
["the authenticity of the documents upon which the DT based its story was not challenged in Court."]
Anyone would think from reading the above that Galloway lost the libel action. He didn't. As for the appeal, well await the outcome. Owly's mentioning of it is intended to bolster the point he made. It does not.
Owly hates the likes of Galloway, from his High Church Tory (for this read snobbish) position. Like all of his class, he believes himself intrinsically superior. Galloway is tough enough to make the likes of Owly shiver in his over protected skin.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Message was edited by: brolly3
Message was edited by: brolly3
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Funny how everyone who disagrees with you is an SOB or a snob.... And cloudy thinks I'm tedious.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
From the allegedly 'Fascist Brolly' to the undoubtedly snobbish owly,
["Matt,
I tend to agree with you. I am, however, somewhat surprised at the number of documents which have been found and the revelations contained therein. I do not believe they are all forgeries either. I find that excuse simply implausible".]
No one but the Senate Committee has seen these Documents and we all know where the Senate Committee leader Coleman stands on the subject - as biased as hell. Is it possible that 'all' the documents are forgeries - yes, why not. The Hitler Diaries were on a massive scale in terms of number of documents and were all forged.
After the 'categorical evidential proof' that Colin Powell produced at the United Nations just before the war, to justify the invasion,when it subsequently turned out that it was a load of rubbish, is it any wonder that many people would not put anything past the Bush and Blair administrations in respect of arranging forged documents and anything else they could use to destroy their political enemies.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
"I do not believe they are all forgeries"
Allot of documentation has turned up indicating George Galloway was in Saddam's hip pocket. Glad to hear you don't consider all documents "forgeries".
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Ttrryosborn,
Actually I said "I do not believe they are all forgeries". And there are two sets of documents involved here: those upon which the Senate Subcommittee based its report, and those upon which the Daily Telegraph based its report. Given the circumstances under which the DT documents were discovered (the facts were given under oath in Court) it would seem the documents are genuine.
Ignore the Fascist brolly. He is an utter moron and a complete waste of space.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Are there any lawyers about who can advise me of my legal position. Owly keeps libeling me by calling me the 'Fascist Brolly'.Should I give him my real name and invite him to repeat the statement?
If I commence legal proceedings, can I get OD to reveal owly's e-mail address so that he can be traced and properly named?
I don't mind him calling me a moron but the Fascist allegation stings. I don't think my calling him a 'snob' is libelous. In any case it is true so I don't have to worry about it. Whereas in calling me a Fascist, owly would have to rely on my posts revealing me to be one as his Defence. I don't think my calling Bush and Blair war criminals would be regarded as making me a Fascist because a prosecution was lodged with Leeds Magistrates Court on, Monday 17th March 2003, alleging that Mr Blair had "prepared and planned aggressive war" against Iraq. This is one of the crimes of which Nazi leaders were
convicted at Nuremberg after the Second World War.
Well the joke is over but Owly watch what you say, as the long arm of the (Brolly) law might reach out and nab you.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
brolly3,
Don't tell me you just told the world you like to dish it out but you can't take it.
Men take it.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
maz2003,
Don't worry, I was not about to launch a libel suite against poor old Olwy. I was speaking with my tongue in my cheek although the thicko that goes by the name of Ttrryosborn took it seriously but that's no surprise.
As for poor GG,I am entirely on his side, as the enemy of my enemy (Bush and Blair) is my friend and George certainly has a way of making Blair look like the fop he is. As for Oona King, she is just a Blair lackey or to use one of GG's terms, a lickspittle. If there is anything that I can't stand it is a Blair 'Babe' who repeats her master's voice. These women (and I had better add men, before you have a go at me) are just lightweight, second raters chasing a political career and are really good for very little else.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
"As for poor GG,I am entirely on his side, as the
enemy of my enemy (Bush and Blair) is my friend and
George certainly has a way of making Blair look like
the fop he is."
Sadly, it is this logic that has turned me slightly against Mr Galloway. In an attempt to emphasise his opposition to the US he has sided a little too closely with even less pleasant elements. His speech to Saddam Hussein, in which he praised the corrupt, brutal dictator, and refusal to condemn the Iraqi insurgency recently on Newsnight, show a lack of critical thinking in my opinion. I have no particular love for the actions of the Bush Administration, and consider the lack of planning for post-invasion Iraq to be criminal in the highest regard. But, I can equally despise the actions of the former Hussein regime, and the indiscriminate murder of civilians by the Iraqi Insurgency.
As one who cares about democracy and freedom, it seems that the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. Perhaps, when people like Mr Galloway and Mr Livingstone realise that, I might have more sympathy for them.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
mr murrell,
i am confused... why would gg condemn the iraqi resistance? it is indeed the position of a large proportion of the anti war movement (to my knowledge) to support the iraqi resistance.
this is quite a common convention in such situations. indeed i believe this is why it is quite legal under international law to resist foreign occupation.
i myself do not support violent resistance, i certainly do not support any forces which i believe to be non-progressive in their quest for power in iraq. however i would certainly not feel it reasonable to condemn the resistance of people who have had this occupation thrust upon them. am i to take it from your suggestion that gg should do so, that this is your position? on what grounds?
i feel that anyone who cares about democracy and freedom should focus on the least progressive force in iraq... the imperialists and murderers.
i also feel that the longer the US have their fingers in that pie the longer it will take to bring any sort of democracy, peace and security to that beleagured nation.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
mr murrell,
i am confused... why would gg condemn the iraqi resistance? it is indeed the position of a large proportion of the anti war movement (to my knowledge) to support the iraqi resistance.
Maz2003,
You're right. I'm afraid I don't have much time to write these posts at the moment, which means I don't give them the attention that I should. In the Newsnight interview I was referring to, Mr Galloway was asked to comment on the Iraqi Insurgency and replied along the sames lines as you. Which I broadly agree on. However, when asked to comment on the targeting of civilians by certain insurgents he seemed to offer a blanket support of any actions carried out by them. It is this that I disagree with, and feel he should have been able to condemn such actions. Which he failed to do.
I should have been more specific.
Surely you agree that there is a need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate actions?
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
hi mr murrell,
i know the feeling - with regards the lack of time and thought to give to posts - most of mine are too cringworthy to re-read.. including the one that initiated this thread. i was actually quite pleased to see dominic hilton had been to the most exciting electoral battleground i have ever experienced and produced an article on it.. i should have been a little more grateful for his attention of our 'good fight' (tongue definitely in cheek). as it was i was overtly enraged by his one-sided representation of RESPECT. to my mind there are so many sides to RESPECT it is difficult to quantify.. at least the party made it to the pages of this wonderful site.
i now post after a few glasses of wine so i also reserve the right to clarify my position later
"Surely you agree that there is a need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate actions?"
your specifity perhaps brings you in line with my thoughts.
i believe i disagree with mr galloway on this one. well.. when i say i disagree don't know what i would do in his position. the fact is.. by raising his head above the parapet (spelling?) on this one he seems to have made enemies.. all around on a scale i could only have nightmares about. and i think he has somehow gathered a sense of his audience.. the ones that support him.. being rather less wide-sighted on these issues than we might be (collective open democracy 'we'.. arrogance is bliss!).
its a sad fact that our society is driven by populism, by emotion, by primitive fear and agression. it is a challengd to us all to harness this fact and take a course that brings us away from the narrow and destructive path our species has taken so consistently throughout the ages
i might differ from you on the ability to discern legitimacy
"Surely you agree that there is a need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate actions?"
one might say, for example, that it is fair to target american soldiers. they are after all carrying out US foreign policy - without them the war could not(?) take place. but are they a part of the system that created the iraqi victims? are they not poor/misled etc into a conflict that they did not directly bring about. if i meet a soldier i will give him my thoughts on being the tool to enable these wars. but what is a just war? what is a legitimate action.
i think i shied away from these questions a while ago. i got the distinct feeling of ridicule of the idea of 'pacifism'. in presenting my position i have probably tried to tackle the 'hitler' question with my sparse historical knowledge and retreated in dismay. but deep down i dont believe violence can be any part of civilisation. agression, adrenaline, dominance and power are elements that we can direct and command within the arenas of sport, business and politics.
of course we must deal with reality. we ride on the back of a history of barbarity. we must deal with what confronts us. and importantly we must surely acknowledge that in our times of deepest crisis.. when our ancestors have had their backs against the wall.. this is when we have found our ingenuity,. this is when we have made our greatest leaps and created our greatest masterpieces. this is how we found the computer, and the internet over which i am about to transmit this message.
i dont have answers. i can perhaps assess on a scale that some actions appear more justified than others. but if i am honest i say that none are. i say the mightiest warrior was ghandi, and all like him, who have faced brutality with non-violence. and as much as i admire this or that person.. i do not expect all the answers to gush forth from them
ah-my taxi is here
it troubles me that so many i know that opposed this war take the populist line on the resistance. whoever shouts loudest and all that. perhaps one day i shall be a great orator like gg - or not ;)
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Maz2003,
The whole question of the resistance in Iraq is a morally complicated one, with few, if any, easy answers. I have little sympathy with any group that uses violence to achieve it's aims (either through suicide bombings or advanced military technology), but then I have the benefit of living in a secure western nation. I will (hopefully) never suffer from the choices and situations faced by those in Iraq. I too would like to point out the success of non-violent movements led by people such as Ghandi or Martin Luther-King. But, it is impossible to say whether my philosophy would change once people started shooting at me.
However, I still believe it is important to speak out against actions you feel are unjustified. Even if you don't have all the answers. To be perfectly honest, I find terms such as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" almost impossible to define. But, that does not mean we should abandon the attempt. Sadly it seems that most people find it easier to simply take one side over the other, and brush aside any doubts or criticism.
Given that I have called on others elsewhere to approach Coalition actions and statements critically, it falls upon me to approach the insurgency in the same way. This is what troubled me about Brolly's statement about the "enemy of my enemy". Opposing US actions does not mean you should automatically support everyone else that opposes it. I have no desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with Al-Qaeda, North Korea, or the Soviet Union. Where I believe the resistance's actions are justified, I will support them. Where I believe they are unjustified, I will condemn them. This would seem to me to be the best approach.
It is also important to recognise the fact that the resistance, like RESPECT, is not a homogenous mass, but instead made up of many different groups with their own aims and beliefs.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Matt Murrell,
["I have no particular love for the actions of the Bush Administration, and consider the lack of planning for post-invasion Iraq to be criminal in the highest regard."]
You are wrong about the lack of planning.The US had a plan, which was and is the establishment of large military bases in Iraq. The illegal invasion was not concerned with the betterment of the lives of the Iraqi people. This was merely part of the cover for the real purpose, which is US military control of the region from strategic locations.
We know that the State Department had a voluminous plan drawn up but this was of little consequence to the neocon
hawks in the Bush administration.So to accuse the Bush administration of criminality for not planning is wide of the mark. The real legal criminality was the original purpose, which is the occupation of another country without due cause in Interntational law.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Matt Murrell,
The situation in Iraq is that the US intends to remain in secure, fortress like bases for years to come, so that they can dominate the Middle East oil region. They do not want to be directly involved in the policing and suppression of any uprisings or insurgency and are training an Iraqi security force to do the dirty work under the direction of the puppet government (for that is what it is and will become notwithstadning any constitution or vote).
The insurgents recognize that the security forces will become the US army by proxy and therefore regard them as legitimate targets.The problem is that attacks upon the security forces usually spill over to passer by civilians. This is most unfortunate but in a sense can be blamed on the ruthless agression of the US in pursuing the neocon aims, which can no longer fool anyone that it is to do with the spread of democracy.
The power of the US can only be resisted in the most asymmetric of ways and this is the tragedy unfolding before the world. It will get a lot worse in the future if the neocons retain their grip on power and their influence over the American people. The nationalist forces that will be provoked throughout the world, China in particular, will not be dampened by the fact of doing trade with the US. Pre-1914 trade between Germany, France,the UK and others did not stop World War One.
Message was edited by: brolly3
Message was edited by: brolly3
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Brolly3,
While I generally agree with you, it has to be recognised that there are individuals and groups within the insurgency who do not have the Iraqi peoples' best interests at heart. For example, the bombing of UN and Red Cross workers can hardly be counted as legitimate resistance.
The reason it is so important to condemn these actions is that they lose world support. It is too easy for those who oppose the resistance to simply conflate all the groups operating in Iraqi into one - using the actions of terrorists to condemn those fighting to free their country from what they see as foreign interference and oppression. We have to make that distinction.
Message was edited by: Matt Murrell
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Matt Murrell,
I apolgise for causing you to blush because of my remarks on 'American power & the world'.
Alas, I forgot that I had unfinished business on this thread such was my preoccupation with all the postings on the subject of imperialism, this apart from my own work which is now taking up more time than I like.
["The reason it is so important to condemn these actions is that they lose world support. It is too easy for those who oppose the resistance to simply conflate all the groups operating in Iraqi into one - using the actions of terrorists to condemn those fighting to free their country from what they see as foreign interference and oppression. We have to make that distinction"].
I find it very difficult to comment upon the violent actions in Iraq, because it is possible to make out a case for almost any of them, depending upon the viewpoint adopted.
On one point I have no doubt and that is the US invasion and occupation set in motion the kind of 'terrorism'we are seeing (I should add on TV or reading about.) This is a fact although it is possible to argue that the US intervention has brought to an end Saddam's repressions and murders.
Another view is that the only way more nationalist resistance can attempt to deal with the massive firepower of the US troops, is to adopt a form of 'scorched earth' tactic by upsetting the plans to pass the duties of security over to indigenous forces. This does indeed involve killing Iraqis that are in the police or in the new army being trained and built up.
I think it is very difficult to condemn the actions of the various Iraqis involved in the violence until one is in possession of more detailed knowledge of their motives apart from what one guesses them to be.
In view of the number of Sunnis killed by US bombing and trigger happy shootings, it is possible to surmise that the relatives of those killed and injured and who have had their families torn apart, have lost all sense of humanity through the trauma that they have endured and that their emotional selves are now submerged and a form of revenge, however lopsided it maybe, is now their reason for living. Once again we are confronted with the fact that this is directly due to US actions.I cannot beleive that the US invasion was anything else than an attempt to fulfil the aims which have been extensively aired on the subject of imperialism and therefore must hold them responsible.
I realize that it is possible to justify almost anything from one point of view or another and that I could just as easily argue against my position of blaming the Amercicans. Today, however, I am on one side of the net, the one that says that the US will commit murder and mayhem, if it is believed to be in their economic and security interests and I don't like the hypocrisy and lies that accompanies their wars.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Brolly3,
I didn't mean to pressure you into replying, but you raised some interesting points before and I was hoping you would follow up on them. No apology is needed for your remarks over on 'American Power and the World' - I'm a sucker for flattery.
Anyway...
On one point I have no doubt and that is the US invasion and occupation set in motion the kind of 'terrorism'we are seeing (I should add on TV or reading about.)
Though I agree with your comments about the resistance being a reaction to foreign occupation, and about assymetrical warfare, I don't feel that this is really an "either/or" situation. Yes, the Coalition has a lot to answer for in Iraq, but this doesn't provide a blanket excuse for all actions committed by the insurgency. In the same way that George Galloway's criticism of the US doesn't get him my general support. Plus, I think we have to be careful in attributing ALL of the blame to the US. There were more than likely various groups waiting for Saddam's regime to crumble before making their own bids for power - groups now operating in the resistance. Given the nature of the regime, it seems that violence was inevitable once it showed signs of collapsing. This is one of the many things that the Coalition seems to have overlooked when it invaded.
All that I'm arguing is that a nuanced approach is needed to the situation in Iraq. Simply taking sides doesn't really get us anywhere.
Another view is that the only way more nationalist resistance can attempt to deal with the massive firepower of the US troops, is to adopt a form of 'scorched earth' tactic by upsetting the plans to pass the duties of security over to indigenous forces. This does indeed involve killing Iraqis that are in the police or in the new army being trained and built up.
I don't disagree with this, but it wasn't exactly what I was arguing. My point was the DELIBERATE targetting of civilians - such as UN or Red Cross personel. It is one thing to attack a military target, such as a convoy or military base, and quite another thing to attack a civilian target, such as a polling booth or people looking for work.
I think it is very difficult to condemn the actions of the various Iraqis involved in the violence until one is in possession of more detailed knowledge of their motives apart from what one guesses them to be.
Surely an attack against a purely civilian target should be condemned, regardless of the motive? For example, though I understand the resentment against US actions throughout the Middle East, that does not mean I condone the attacks on the World Trade Centre. No action of the Israeli military can justify the bombing of a school bus...
As someone who broadly supports the aims of the Iraqi resistance (and the Palestinians), I feel it is important to criticise such actions as they ultimately destroy the international support that is vital for any resistance. Every clip of civilian corpses from a suicide bomb makes it easier for those such as the Bush Administration to present the resistance as nothing more than a bunch of indiscriminate murderers.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Matt Murrell,
Your points are well taken. What can I say? It is difficult to condone violence, expecially against civilians.
The question of blame, hoever, is not so easily disposed of by asserting that the potential for violence was there, once the regime showed any sign of collapse or weakness. This may well have been the case but there is no ethical or moral principle to be rescued by a trade off between the violence of the US, which forestalled an indegenous violence that might have arisen sooner or later. This is what the supporters of the war argue when they refer to the past atrocities of Saddam and the likelyhood of future atrocities had he remained in power.
The US (and the UK) had a choice in the matter and did not have to resort to war. When they did, they did not have to use radioactive munitions and 'shock and awe' bombing which is excused on the grounds that it would save coalition lives. If the moral high ground is claimed by the Bush and Blair when there always was an alternative, then blame is justifiable. If it is not in these circumstances, then what others?
So where are we in this discussion, probably not really apart but perhaps putting a different emphasis on aspects.
Re: No RESPECT from Dominic Hilton
Brolly3,
So where are we in this discussion, probably not really apart but perhaps putting a different emphasis on aspects.
I would certainly agree with that. For the current mess in Iraq I would certainly blame the coalition. It has been argued by others that had more emphasis been placed on reconstruction after the invasion, many in Iraq would have had no need to turn to the insurgency. The less people have, the less they have to lose. Heavy-handed tactics, such as the assault on Fallujah, also inflamed the situation. Much of the violence we witness today could have been avoided. Instead, I believe we are witnessing Iraq's descent into civil war.
The US (and the UK) had a choice in the matter and did not have to resort to war.
Here we may potentially part ways. I support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. He was a vicious tyrant and butcher, and I believe Iraq is better off without him. However, I am deeply opposed to the way the invasion was carried out. More effort should have been made to get Security Council support (it could've been done!), and far more emphasis placed on minimising casualties both during and after the invasion. The conduct of the invasion, and subsequent occupation is, in my opinion, criminal. Along with the decade of UN sanctions that crippled an entire society. In an ideal world both Blair and Bush should be placed before a tribunal and judged on their actions.
I am also aware, by advocating UN military involvement in foreign countries, that I am in danger of arguing for a modern day "White Man's Burden". I remain receptive to any arguments that the overthrow of Saddam's regime could have been carried out more effectively by empowering elements already in Iraq. Though the sanctions seemed to destroy any chance of such internal resistance.
Though in no way condoning the invasion as it happened - surely there was a need to act. Not just in Iraq, but with oppressive regimes all across the world? I realise that the likes of Bush and Blair did not act to promote democracy or freedom, but does that mean we should advocate no action at all?
I don't have any easy answers to this. But, perhaps that's what makes the questions so important?
|
|
