Oh dear. Someone’s trying to be clever again.
Now far be it from me to suggest that this article is the biggest load of fucking idiocy Dizzy has ever posted (I know, that would be quite a stretch), but I do think it may be in with a shot.
Poor old Dizzy has decided to attack that most eeeevil section of the population: the anti-war left. You see, we’re not actually concerned about the bloodshed or the violence. Oh no. And, we’re not, apparently, bothered about the damage done to our own security and standing, either. You see, the world according to Dizzy, dictates that actually, if we’re honest, we’re just obsessed with our own sense of “moral self-righteousness.”
We also, he explains, sicken him.
Now before we apologise profusely, maybe we should examine the salient points made by Dizzy that have led to his apparent nausea?
Just a quick observation on the situation in Basra. The reports in the papers note that it is now Shia on Shia fighting as the Iraqi forces take on militia. The obvious cry is that of ‘civil war’ and you can guarantee that rabid anti-war protesters that bang on about how the whole thing was ‘illegal’ will play the connect the dot game with logic and say ‘well it’s all our fault’ line.
Civil War? Obvious? Well if you say so, Dizz.
There is no retrospective joining of dots. We have said from before the invasion that it was the wrong thing to do. Now this has been proven by events, we’ve little need for retrospective musing.
You know how it works, if we had not gone into Iraq this fighting would not have happened, ergo, we are to blame for the fighting. It’s understandabe [sic] why they say this because it’s lazy and very easy thinking that is commonplace, particularly on the Left which is defined by its Hegelian tendencies to see the world through a master/slave, oppresser/oppressed type prism.
Hegelian tendencies? Would that be the same Hegelian (?!) world-view that led to a post-imperial mission to spread “democracy” to those barbarians in the Middle East? I wonder…
However, what should really be remembered is this. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and the Shias were considered scum of the earth and subjected to all manner of horrors under his regime. To thus play the comparison game and effectively say that if more die now than died under Saddam it would have been better to have done nothing simply results in two things.
Actually, I’m not sure that should be remembered. Because it’s pretty fucking incoherent. More dying now is a bad thing. Two dead people is worse than one. Oh, and BTW, no-one said we should do nothing. That’s pretty fucking lazy, Dizz. We said that we should continue to work through the UN. We said that we should allow the weapons inspectors to finish their job, which, it transpires, they were doing rather well. What we argued against was an illegal war of choice; going it alone with only the US and a handful of smaller allies and without an international mandate.
You can always spot someone with a wooly argument. They always bifurcate the debate as Dizzy is doing. He knows he’s defending the indefensible, so he tries to demonise his opposition and argues they supported inaction. When in fact, many of those who argued against the war were more than aware what sort of regime existed prior to ‘03.
Pssst! They knew because they criticised the Reagan administration for funding and arming it. Liberals were criticising Saddam back when he was still on the White House Christmas card list. Maybe that is what should really be remembered, eh?
Firstly it is little more than 20/20 hindsight, but second, and much worse, it places the value of human life as little more than a statistic whilst masquerading itself as a moral position.
Er, no. 20/20 hindsight suggests that we’re basing our argument on an unforeseen outcome. Anyone with just modicum of historical understanding of Iraq predicted that it would be a total clusterfuck of pain. Tom Friedman, prior to his eventual acceptance of the bullshit WMD scaremongering from the Bush administration, wrote many articles outlining the sectarian battle-lines within the Iraqi population. He argued that a tribal and religious tempest would be unleashed, and we better be ready for it (FYI we weren’t).
And as for human life as a statistic. Fuck you, you bedroom-warrior fucktard. It’s the anti-war movement that publishes the photos and posts the videos of suffering. It’s the Bush administration that outlawed anyone filming the body-bags of casualties. Don’t lecture us about our moral position. The overwhelming proof that the invasion of Iraq is a complete disaster, is demonstrable both statistically and anecdotally.
Frankly this is what sickens me most about the anti-war Left. They claim to care and cherish human life, and yet they will simultaneously be willing to sit on their hands and reduce that human life they care so much about down to a numbers game.
No we don’t you myopic twat. As I explained above, no-one - other than a fringe of loony lefties and libertarians - argued they should “sit on their hands”. They just weren’t so god-damn fucking desperate to play war with other people’s lives. Capiche?
Oh, and before I finish off; let’s not let this nugget pass: “They scream about a million deaths in the war (a bollocks figure incidentally)…” How exactly do you know it’s bollocks? Are not the Baghdad hospitals and aid agencies better placed to make this judgement? For someone who has so masterfully proved their own ignorance in previous paragraphs, this seems terribly overconfident.
And Dizzy, what was the fucking point of this diatribe? Seriously? Sometimes you seem the most rational of your particular clique, and then you write this dogshit. You haven’t made a single case for why the anti-war movement was wrong. You haven’t defended, in any useful way, the decision to go to war. All you’ve done is pen an ignorant post about how the anti-war left are a bunch of sickening wankers. Get a grip, dude.
Sphere: Related Content
{ 12 } Comments
Not going into bat for Dizzy but one thing I will take issue with:
“no-one - other than a fringe of loony lefties and libertarians - argued they should “sit on their hands”. They just weren’t so god-damn fucking desperate to play war with other people’s lives. Capiche?”
Fair enough and yes, Dizzy wrongly attributes the ‘do nothing’ attitude to the whole anti-war left. But what I’ve never seen is a coherent statement on what this other more active element in the anti-war faction would’ve done. The ‘continue sanctions / inspections’ line has no real credibility, not least because sanctions were have minimal impact and Saddam was effectively evading meaningful inspections (a truism even although no WMD have since been found).
Happy to concede that I originally supported the war but, on the basis of it’s subsequent execution, I got it badly wrong and that probably separates me from Dizzy - in the main the anti-lobby has been vindicated.
But I still long for a coherent alternative history of the last 5 years that would’ve brought less bloodshed, removed Saddam and installed a fledgling democracy - the absence of that means the anti-crowd can’t be quite as smug as they sometimes are…..
Hi Cassilis
The ‘continue sanctions / inspections’ line has no real credibility, not least because sanctions were have minimal impact and Saddam was effectively evading meaningful inspections (a truism even although no WMD have since been found).
Do you know why Saddam played such a dangerous game with the Americans? He was fundamentally weak at home. He gave the impression that he’d possibly got weapons, knowing it strengthened his hand against enemies at home - including within the Baathist party. Had we had real intelligence. Had we invested knowledge over brawn. We may have realised this.
Also, if I was desperate for cash and I burgled your house, I’m guessing you’d be pretty pissed off if when apprehended, I asked you what I should have done? The answer is, firstly, you don’t break the law. The war in Iraq was illegal as there was no UNSC sanction, no clear threat to *our* sovereignty, and no ongoing mass-humanitarian disaster defined by the UN. We’re supposed to be a responsible nation, which invests in international law and institutions.
Also, the pro-war lobby lied to convince parliament to go to war. 45-minutes and the Niger Yellow-Cake story were fabrications. Iraq wasn’t a threat. How can we make legitimate judgements, if all we’re working with is a bullshit, manufactured premise. The intelligence services didn’t create this crock, the politicians did. So desperate were they to go to war, they totally polluted the debate.
If we’re going to deal with every ongoing immoral regime, why are we not landing ships in Chinese harbours, bombing northern Sudan, and toppling the Kingdom of Saud? Why is it we only choose to act when it’s in our economic interest?
I don’t care about the arguments for or against the war Tyger. That is why I didn’t mention them. I was making a point about how human life is used is oft cited as a reason for things being wrong, whilst simultaneously implying that that the human life in previous period was less valuable because less died. That is actually a pretty sickening position that play politics with life, but does so in the name of life. Staling infamously said that one death was a tragedy a million is just a statistic. The anti-war left is doing just that on the matter of Iraqi deaths.
Incidentally, can you please cite me what international sovereign enforces international law because the last time I looked we did not have a one world Government so suggesting something was illegal is nonsense. The UN has sovereignty over it’s members so to talk about it’s will being ignored as an illegality is crap.
I did support the war and still support my decision. I didn’t support it for ridding the world of Saddam, nor for WMD. I supported it because it was in the strategic and political interests of Britain to do. It was right to support it for those reasons and it is still right to have done so in my view. The thing that really annoys is the price of petrol actually went up.
Oh yes, I also wrote it to get a reaction.
I think realpolitik is the answer to your final question Aaron. Decrying action on the basis that we don’t act similarly in other situations is a weak argument - it can be used to question the integrity or consistency of those it’s levelled against but not to question the validity of the action itself.
Cassilis,
Why is it weak?
The answer is that we only invaded Iraq because control of the region has been foreign policy objective number one since the Opec Crisis. It’s been fully documented by the former insider, John Perkins.
The War in Iraq has much more in common with the Opium Wars, than any intervention based on moral judgement. The action was never “valid”. We disagree fundamentally on this.
The bullshit prior to the invasion persuaded better, more informed, people than us that it was a just war. Our only hope is that people do not buy it a second time.
Interesting. You don’t appear to care that British servicemen are dying for what may or may not have been a false premise. Okay, I’ll forgive you on grounds of context, but that’s a pretty careless statement.
I don’t think any deliberate implication is intended that states previous death is somehow less important. You’re really muddled here, Dizzy. It’s about the blood being on *our* hands and it being our ongoing concern. Shouldn’t we act within accordance to the values we preach and demand of others?
Tell me, why shouldn’t anti-war liberals be concerned about death caused in *their* name?
And forgetting numbers for minute. What about the resentment of a generation of Muslims, who can level this death at our feet? Is that not something to worry about, when trains explode in underground stations?
Under UN law, only the UNSC can sanction war (unless direct threat can be proven or boarders are breached). Which, if you please, *is* the World Government from a legal position. Are you suggesting we ignore inconvenient laws? If so, then I’m afraid everything the West has stood for since 1945 is bullshit.
Anyway, the UN itself has gone on record stating that the ‘03 invasion was illegal. So, while it may suit to play these silly neocon games, the facts don’t bear this out.
lol. I’d love to know the rationale behind that bunkum. Yeah, Britain’s strategic and political interests have never been better. Laugh? I nearly fell over.
Your motives for posting on your blog are your own concern. But I retain the right to think that’s a cop-out.
“Interesting. You don’t appear to care that British servicemen are dying for what may or may not have been a false premise. Okay, I’ll forgive you on grounds of context, but that’s a pretty careless statement. - tyger”
I think you’ll find that the careless statement was you taking what I said, and then rewriting it in too another statement completely different in order to accuse me of saying something I hadn’t. That is true carelessness because it’s evidence of crappy easy to rip apart argument.
“Shouldn’t we act within accordance to the values we preach and demand of others? - tyger”
That is not the way real politik works. Never has been and never will be. Sorry to have to inform you of this tyger, but in the big wide real world of international affairs it is power that matters, and acting according to the known scenario at any known given time with the intention of calculating the best outcome. The idea that morality and ethics has a place in foreign policy ios an illussion for idiots.
“And forgetting numbers for minute. What about the resentment of a generation of Muslims, who can level this death at our feet? Is that not something to worry about, when trains explode in underground stations? - tyger”
I suggest you go and read up on Islamism. It’s been around for much longer than the Iraq War, and thinking that it hasn’t is little more than the act of an ostrich.
“Under UN law, only the UNSC can sanction war (unless direct threat can be proven or boarders are breached). Which, if you please, *is* the World Government from a legal position. Are you suggesting we ignore inconvenient laws? If so, then I’m afraid everything the West has stood for since 1945 is bullshit. - tyger”
Oh dear oh dear, the casual use of the word law doesn’t make it so. In order for law to exist there must be a common power to administer it. A sovereign. There is no international sovereign, no sovereignty or right of action has been conferred upon the UN over it’s members. It cannot order it’s members to do anything because it has no power to. The reason it has no power to is because its members have not given it the power. That is a fact. If there is no common power then there is no law. And if there is no law, there can be no injustice or illegality. It’s not a neocon position either, it’s one that is well over 400 years old.
“Anyway, the UN itself has gone on record stating that the ‘03 invasion was illegal. So, while it may suit to play these silly neocon games, the facts don’t bear this out. - tyger”
If a woman stands up and shouts she is a man does it make it a fact that she is man? As I’ve already explained to you tyger, the notion of international law is fallacy, and what is also a fallacy is to use an ad verecundiam argument in the hope being all clever. It isn’t clever, it is lazy and weak.
“I’d love to know the rationale behind that bunkum. Yeah, Britain’s strategic and political interests have never been better. Laugh? I nearly fell over.”
Errr let’s see shall will. America was going to go to war anyway and she is her ally. The political implications and precendent of America going alone were far greater than if she went with another global player of significance. In addition Britiain has strategic interests in the region (that means oil you numpty).
I’m flummoxed by what you’re trying to say. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Dude, you wrote what you fucking wrote. I can’t be held responsible if you write: “I don’t care about the arguments for or against the war”. FFS.
Realpolitik is about best serving the interest of the nation-state. Getting bogged down in Iraq was never a case of Realpolitik, so I’ll ignore the lecture (and BTW, the war in Iraq was sold as a war based on ideology, indeed the Fukuyama-led intellectual backbone that inspired the PNAC movement was a rebuttal of Henry Kissinger’s modern interpretation of the Realpolitik school).
That’s quite brilliant. I’ll make a promise to all my readers. I’ll keep my blog up forever just so those words, attributed to you, hang in history forever. There is no such thing as law, it it’s not upheld. Quite brilliant. I suppose freedom of speech and the right to self-determination don’t exist if no-one enforces them either? (BTW. before we go on, I should warn you I’ve had this very argument a hundred times before, and I’ve never seen your position hold up to scrutiny).
You’re not actually making any relevant points, are you? So what if we need oil. We haven’t got any more for invading Iraq, have we? We’ve failed. Oil production isn’t particularly great, and it’s being sold on the open market, at record prices!!! Seriously, you’re tying yourself in knots.
Saddam would have been quite happy to sell you the oil, if this were really about Realpolitik.
“I’m flummoxed by what you’re trying to say. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Dude, you wrote what you fucking wrote. I can’t be held responsible if you write: “I don’t care about the arguments for or against the war”. FFS.”
WTF? I said I didn’t care because it was irrelevant to the point I was making in my post you cock.
“That’s quite brilliant. I’ll make a promise to all my readers. I’ll keep my blog up forever just so those words, attributed to you, hang in history forever. There is no such thing as law, it it’s not upheld. Quite brilliant. - tyger”
I didn’t say there was no such thing as law, I said there was no such thing as international law because there is no international sovereign. There you go again with your straw men misrepresentation. Law comes from sovereignty and power. If there is no sovereignty there can be no law. It’s quite a simple bit of political philosophy to get your head round.
The most hilarious thing though really, and I’m not going to deny I am actually wetting myself at this one, is that you think the argument is mine! I kind of presumed, evidently incorrectly, that what with you being a great expert on politics that you would have spotted that the argument was taken straight out of Chapter XIII of The Leviathan by the forefather of classical liberalism, Thomas Hobbes.
See what really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny here tyger is your ability to understand what I said, and instead to misrepresent it because of the aforementioned failure. I suggest you go and read the chapter titled “OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY” and then come to understand how Hobbes ’state of nature’ is analogous to the international order within in which individual sovereign nations exist. Then, perhaps, just maybe, you will understand the point that was being made about the philosophical status of so-called “international law”
“You’re not actually making any relevant points, are you? So what if we need oil. We haven’t got any more for invading Iraq, have we? We’ve failed. Oil production isn’t particularly great, and it’s being sold on the open market, at record prices!!! Seriously, you’re tying yourself in knots. - tyger”
I’m not tying myself in knots at all, it’s you that is reading my words and then extrapolating secondary and tertiary conclusions from them that simply do not exist. My point about oil was that in the scope of what was about to happen, i.e. that America _was_ going to invade Iraq irrespective of if we were there or not, meant, we had to make a choice. Go with them, and hope to secure the best outcome of strategic interests in the region, or stay behind and lose what little interests we already had there. It’s a pretty simple fucking power play calculation. It’s not difficult to get.
I stated in the very first rebuttal that I’ll give you benefit of the doubt. Context etc. However, that said, I may well be a cock.
Your whole premise is futile. Because there *is* such a thing as international law. It recognised by all the sovereign states who sign up to the UN - even if some choose to break it. It’s no use hiding behind pseudo-philosophical wank, if what your arguing about it demonstrably untrue.
For a perfect example of a straw-man argument, may I draw the reader’s attention to example number one.
I think I said the words you wrote are attributed to you. I never claimed you’d dreamt up with the original premise.
Why thank you, but you know I’d never say so myself.
Is this a very intellectual way of saying your dick is bigger than mine? Pssst. I never bought into Hobbes. Never considered Royalists to be very progressive.
Did you ever watch that episode of the office where David Brent has a on-going debate with Ricky about Dostoyevsky?
Maybe if you explained it better… no wait, even when you explain it, it was still a bad call. Britain would be better had it not gone into Iraq. Period.
Post a Comment