No, I said "You're right - extremism does not exist in a vacuum, unaffected by world events. Blair's policy towards Iraq has caused far more terrorism and violence and extremism and anti-Western anger than there would have been before. Yes, there are extremists who don't need any further excuse to incite violence - but we are talking about those native Iraqis, and those young British muslims who see the injustice of this war of aggression and who are fired up to commit acts they might not otherwise have done. This was the original point. Would there have been so many native Iraqis taking up arms and joining up with foreign extremists if not for the invasion? Clearly not. People see the atrocities going on in Iraq and are driven to anger and violence... the reality of Iraq acting as a "recruiting sergeant" for extremism is that many people who would not otherwise have been driven to anger and violence are now. This is the reality, this is what Tony can be thanked for." There is NO good excuse to "blow up people on a daily basis". The fact remains that those who wish to do this now have a reason and an opportunity created by the invasion and consequent civil war. A war to "bring peace"? Quite clearly Iraq was a tinderbox held in an uneasy stasis by Saddam's rule... invading was the one thing likely to ignite this, and this is what happened. This was not a 'war to bring peace', since it was so very likely that the invasion would cause more suffering than would otherwise have occurred, would shatter the uneasy status quo and bring extremism and violence. And now history has proven this to be true beyond all our worst fears. You *could* say that this was a war to "bring democracy", however impossible, idiotic and naive that idea is. This may be the best possible spin you could put on the Iraq invasion. But then, you have the issue of millions dead, a genocide committed in the name of an ideology. There is NO good excuse to commit genocide. Failure? The case with WW2 is so different that it really bears no comparison. The differences are more important than the similarities. I realise this is the desperate remnant of your attempt to regard this as a "just war" on that model, but I believe it is impossible to regard this war as "just" or "justified" and no outcome will make the death toll and the devastation caused be "worth it".
I meant extremists do not need any further excuses - that is who you were seemingly talking about in that post - i thought you agreed with that. It seems you agree. Well they must be blind to some of the violence then. I did say i do not think secterian violence has anything to do with us. I know you can make every road lead to MR Blair and Co. So it is pretty futile me argueing over this again. If i accept the turmoil caused by the removal Saddam/invasion of Iraq. Then i will accept that. I can't accept we perpertuate these atrocities. Some if not all 'blame' needs to fall directly on the people who carry out these actions - whoever they are. I can agree with your rationale. Like i said ''success'' is the wrong word. IF my ''IFs'' come to pass then what can it be called ? . I do not mind altering the word as it seems to have made you think i'm being ''loathsome'' when infact that is not my intention. Gee whiz man - please stay on the same page. Forget about your views for a minute or two. I'm talking about IF some kind of peace - akin to Germany - occurs - what would you call that ?. Not a long sentence - just a word or two. No i'm not trying to make this into a ''just'' or ''justified'' war by comparing it to WW2. Again i only mean the tragedy of so many dying. Like i have said again and again and again. Well this is the other point i mean about comparing it to WW2 as far as the death count goes. Clearly in your mind that was not ''worth it'' either. History has been far more kind on Churchil and his war than possibly is justified. As i think you have said - you percieve Bush and Co as the aggressors and your views spin from that. This is why will never agree. Given your position - i can see that it is like me being on Hitlers side.
As I said, I think, on about page one or two of this, it's ridiculous to think I am claiming anything of the sort. I think you just fail to properly understand the points I make. Bush and Blair are the aggressors. They started a war of aggression, they invaded a country. I can't believe you would attempt to dispute that. This is why no comparison to WW2 is possible. Of course I wouldn't go as far as comparing Bush and Blair to the Nazis in anything other than the fact that they started a war of aggression... the comparison just fails on all levels. I think in your view if "our" side cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, in the name of peace, freedom and democracy, that's somehow more acceptable than if the likes of Hussein do so in the name of tyranny. I may be wrong, but I think this is the assumption which underpins everything you say, when you say things like "I can't accept we are as bad as them" - in terms of numbers dead, we are as bad, or worse. You seem to enjoy telling people they are ideologically biased, but I think this is yours. (Obviously) I am in favour of democracy and freedom, but I will condemn those who kill in the name of ideology, no matter what that ideology is. I condemn all sides responsible for the ongoing violence in Iraq, and I condemn those who began the war, and made a situation in which this civil war was possible - likely - inevitable. The notion that the fact we are waging war in the name of freedom and democracy makes the death toll laid at our door more palatable I can never accept. If you believe that committing genocide in the name of an ideology is acceptable, then you are as bad as "them". If you start a war somewhere like Iraq, with the entirely predictable consequences we have seen, that is what you're doing - causing a genocide, causing decades of pain and suffering - in the name of ideology.
If you mean any war that is started is a war of aggression then i think you are wrong. Imho this was not a war of aggression. If it was - then the UN supports wars of aggression. We don't need to go through the illegality/legality again. Though this underpins a lot of what [in our heads] justifys our positions. As far as i'm aware aggressors do not wait for the innocent to clear a city - neither do they do the kind of work that our side have done. Well if i accept this as a war of aggression then i might as well go along with the notion of the illigality of the war - heck i might as well just agree with everything you say and then go call Mr Blair a ****. Strange as it is - some people have other points of view. As badly as you think they may put that POV across. The world is not according to - you . Thank the lord you are not one of those people. In a way i suppose so - every person who is not anti war has to accept that as a reality.. It is just i think you see us as the aggressor - i do not. The indirect/direct cause of all the events occuring - i do not. I think that is what spits both our opinions - never the twain shall meet. I accept you have a point their. The majority of the time i do say - in so far as ''ideological bias'' goes - ''we are all as bad as each other''. All i say is ''will it be worth it'' . These words are said after every single war . All i say is IF and WILL IT and you know the rest after that. This is why i try and pin you down over the end result of WW2. That was supposedly ''in the name of freedom and democracy''. It does not stop all those deaths at our hands and perpetuated by us any less of a tragedy or genocidal [if i follow your logic]. In my eyes you avoid that part of the comparison because you despise all war. I just wish you would say that. If you are not and you have supported a war - wich one Well i'm as bad as 99% of the world - like i said earlier. We do not live in your world unfortunatly. I just don't buy into the whole 'ideology' shpeel. Of course to a degree it plays a part - though i think we will disagree what the ideology is. I think i know to the extreme you take that line of reasoning - so i do not wish to get into that.
I use the term "war of aggression" here in line with these straightforward UN definitions (not invoking arguments that war was illegal): "invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force"; "planning, preparing, ordering, initiating, or carrying out an armed attack". The war was STARTED by the armed forces of the USA and the UK, when they INVADED Iraq and deposed its leader. There was no attack provoking the war. It was therefore an act of aggression. A country or countries launching a war against a sovereign state with the express intention of deposing that country's leadership fits the textbook definition of a "war of aggression". It was not a defensive campaign, an humanitarian intervention, nor a peacekeeping mission, but by definition a "war of aggression". When the bloodshed finally stops, when the millions are dead, I will still regard the thing which precipitated all this tragedy - the war of aggression which began the whole catastrophe - as an abject failure. An abominable mistake. WW2 was far from clear cut, with atrocities committed on all sides. Whether the effect of the war produced less suffering than alternatives which could have been pursued - I'm not sure. Hitler was certainly a FAR greater threat to life than Saddam Hussein could ever dream of being. Did the Allies always do the best thing in countering Nazi aggression? Undoubtedly not. "Worth it" - worth starting? Of course not. Worth retaliating in the way the Allies did? I'm not sure. To properly compare in this case you would have to compare Bush and Blair to the Nazis as they were the ones who *started* the war. It is such a can of worms that the analogy is useless here, and that's why I avoid it. The Iraq war is frankly, far more clear cut. Of course I despise all war - don't you? There may be times when use of force is the least bad option, if you are *preventing* genocides from happening, for instance - trading the devastation of war to stop a larger amount of suffering and devastation. In the case of Iraq, as I have said over and over - the war caused far more devastation than would have occurred otherwise. "We" were not preventing genocide, but *causing* one. Unequivocally and without a shadow of doubt it was not the "least bad" option. It was one of the worst options. It can only be regarded as a terrible mistake. "Sucess" or being "worth it" can not come into it. The only grounds on which you could imagine it might prove "worth it" is if you think the ideology for which the war was fought is more important than millions of lives - the belief that abstract principles outweigh the suffering of millions. This is the mindset of an ideological extremist.
Imho - The legality is the key - one way or the other it either makes your point or breaks your point. That is why i said the UN must engage in 'wars of aggression'. Why would they not call the Iraq war a 'war of aggression' why would they implement further mandates and resolutions. Fair enough. I agree with you I agree with you . I only use it [WW2]as a e.g because of the amount of people dead. I'm sure there are more valid e.gs. MMMMMM seems not - with the amount of 'debating' that has gone on all over the globe. I do not like wars occuring - that is for sure - unfortunatly i do not swing 180 degrees the other way - I meant it in the way that some people despise all war and see no need for a military. I was wondering if you were 'on of them'. True but sometimes even those actions lead to a escalation - into a more bloody war and solve nothing in particular. Like in Somalia. Fair enough - i think you are talking a language i understand today. It takes fresh eyes i imagine - step back and i see. I'm sorry if this is what you have been trying to say all along. It just seemed you were trying to dis---oh never mind. This is what i must be, sorry.
I hate michael meacher, almost as much as blair. cant believe he's standing. John McDonnell should be the cunts replacement, to repeal all the tory anti-union laws and to make Britain a fairer place
Alas, he has about as much chance of becoming leader as the Labour Party ever does of becoming explicitly socialist....
He don't have much chance, so i would have to disagree with your comparison Theres been a surge of left wing activity in the LP recently, and I think the example of liverpool council serves as a perfect example of how the left can use the mass party of the working class to benefit the workng class.
The Labour Party has never been socialist and it will never be socialist. Clause 4 was always a tokenistic nod to nationalisation. Where nationalisation occured it has almost always been with failing and underfunded industries. What the Labour Party was, and what Tony Blair took away, was its destinctly social democratic tendencies. By allying itself to neo-liberalism, Blair's third way has essentially smoothed over the harshest cracks of Thatcherism, but has, in the process, pushed the party away from its social democratic roots. But to identify social democratic roots is not to identify socialism. The LP expelled its socialists before it even gained its first MP. That the majority of the working class orientate towards the LP and that they may gain some benefits from a left-leaning LP does not make the party socialist. The mass of the working class themselves are not socialist....
Ironically I think you're right. The working class itself has sub-divided into many sub-classes where some don't even understand the basic political processes of this country nevermind the concept that you can vote, I mean no arrogance by this, just experience. I guess the true idoelogy of socialism was supported by necessity and protection as a union man at one time. If it weren't for the support of the professional middle class these romantic philanthropists and its sympathise for the disadvantaged; Labour wouldn't be in power, if not its majority wouldn't be anything like it has. Now that there seems a better standard in how we can lead ourlives, a nation of homeowners and investment conscienous the working class have stepped up the ladder and echo the shite about choices in society and lazy bastards sponging away taxpayers money. It seems a shame that liberal conservatism appears to be the natural disposition of the british people, I'm alright Jack! An Englishman's home is his castle. Quick draw the bridge the plebs are coming!
Although Blair is a **** of the same magnitude as Thatcher - I believe that in the end he might just have redeemed himself with green issues The labour party only now needs to adopt an aviation tax and then they will actually nail the flag to the mast on that issue. If they deliver all they say on green issues and impose severe aviation fuel tax I would advocate their policies - but may have to think about them a bit more if they dont announce aviation taxes The Conservatives and anyone who votes for em are a bunch of lying scum that I wouldnt consider fit to lick the crack of my arse clean - so it aint even worth discussing them
I imagine he is a 'nice guy' . BUT - Lots of people are 'nice' but do 'evil' things. I think the 'evil' thing Blair has done is Iraq - well not me but some people who think he is a ****. It depends on your POV of course - in his public life he has done lots of things that have made him a hate figure - even if he maybe a 'nice guy' in his personal life.
