SOCIALIST UNITY

7 February, 2010

HE LIED THOUSANDS DIED.

Filed under: Iraq — Derek Wall @ 3:06 pm

Alistair Campbell was the spin doctor who spun us to war and as a result a great many innocent people died.

More here

61 Comments »

Yeah, hes a lying little bastard. And of course, everyone noticed that his tears came just in time to avoid a simple question about the prescise mechanics of how he and Blair falsified intelligence about Iraq.

“Boo-hoo, you can’t ask me that terrible question, if you do I’ll cwy, I tell you, I’ll cwy. Boo-hoo”

Lying scumbag.

Comment by ID — 7 February, 2010 @ 3:13 pm
Well what a surprise!

How inevitable……they are all working to cover eachother´s backs not that they have any fear of procescution because the complete immunity they know they have.

It´s not only a question of hundred of thousands of Iraqi´s(estimated to be over a million) having died….the point is thousands of people are also continuing to die as a result of US / UK imperialist support for ongoing war and occupation in both Iraq and Afghanistan,Pakistan and Palestine and in the name of full spectrum dominance they want to go on to take out Iran and Yemen.

Comment by Fleabite — 7 February, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
These men will never be able to escape their decision to go to war in Iraq. Tony Blair will be hounded for the rest of his life by this issue. Like Nixon, who was never allowed to forget Watergate, Blair will never be allowed to forget Iraq. I think Campbell’s tears are acknowledgement that nothing else these corrupt men have done will ever matter when compared to Iraq.

The fact that a press officer could become so powerful typifies the crisis at the heart of the British Government. Under Blair and Brown there was no cabinet or collective decision making. Those in the cabinet were by and large political yes men, sychophants, and political lightweights, too scared and timid to challenge Blair.

Comment by Owen — 7 February, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
Because people died has absolutely nothing to do with Blair or Campbell’s integrity. This rather basic and obvious point passes people by.

More here:
http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/275251.html

Comment by Ed D — 8 February, 2010 @ 1:27 am
These men will never be able to escape their decision to go to war in Iraq. Tony Blair will be hounded for the rest of his life by this issue. Like Nixon, who was never allowed to forget Watergate, Blair will never be allowed to forget Iraq. I think Campbell’s tears are acknowledgement that nothing else these corrupt men have done will ever matter when compared to Iraq.

I think a key part of this hounding will depend on you getting an Iraqi government that was totally against the war. There is no sign of that happening for the foreseeable future - Iraq’s educated classes are just too intelligent for this time happen. How can Blair be regarded as a war criminal when the democratic government of the country that this war crime was supposedly committed against agreed with the “war crime”?

No, history will vindicate Blair and the hounding will stop.

Comment by Ed D — 8 February, 2010 @ 1:32 am
“history will vindicate Blair ”

sorry, that is the funniest thing I have ever read.

Blair is a walking ghost, despised and reviled, and even being lined up as a scapegoat by many who agreed with him at the time.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2010 @ 1:35 am
At least Goebbels had the decency to kill himself.
What hope Campbell will ever do the same?

Comment by Strategist — 8 February, 2010 @ 1:48 am
I love the way EdD talks about ‘Blair haters’ as if there was something discreditable or eccentric about it. Very strange.

Comment by johng — 8 February, 2010 @ 2:08 am
The swine even disputed the death toll. Such a worm.

Comment by Benjamin — 8 February, 2010 @ 3:19 am
sorry, that is the funniest thing I have ever read.

Blair is a walking ghost, despised and reviled, and even being lined up as a scapegoat by many who agreed with him at the time.

Or alternatively he is a happy multi millionaire who still has huge respect and influence on the world stage, missing European president by a whisker.

I don’t think most people revile Blair at all. We’re obviously in the middle of the Iraq inquiry where a lot of propaganda and frankly lies get told - the old story - and there is a little bubble of anger that pops up. But you’re making a mistake if you think antiwar families of the dead represent the British people. Most people understand Blair brought peace to Northern Ireland, is celebrated by Kosovan Muslims and led the world to treble third world aid. And as Iraq continues to stand by the decision to liberate them, this will become more apparent as the years go on.

They don’t have to love the guy to respect him.

Comment by Ed D — 8 February, 2010 @ 4:25 am
I love the way EdD talks about ‘Blair haters’ as if there was something discreditable or eccentric about it. Very strange.

But I did not use this term in this thread. Maybe you are defensive about being consumed with hatred for such a decent man? Do you have tears in your eyes?

As for the term, it is just short hand for those people that have an irrational hatred for Mr Blair that is not based on real evidence.

I am very fascinated about why it’s not just good enough to say the war was a bad call and wrong, Blair also has to be mad and bad. It’s extremely important for antiwar activists to believe that Blair is a liar, despite no smoking gun after seven years.

Only you guys know why you have to maintain this. It’s psychologically interesting.

Comment by Ed D — 8 February, 2010 @ 4:27 am
And the Best supporting Actor award gose to…….

Comment by steelcityred — 8 February, 2010 @ 7:31 am
Ed D… www.nannytax.co.uk what about deadtax on them life who as been lost on a war build on lies and as for no smoking gun well there is a lot there if you care to see.

Comment by steelcityred — 8 February, 2010 @ 8:21 am
#15

“and virtually every prominent politician in Britland would have invaded Iraq and later Afghanistan.”

rather a shaky understanding of what happened here, given that Britain invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003.

try to keep up.

Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2010 @ 9:04 am
So what would those who revile Tony Blair have done about Saddam’s regime?

There was an obvious alternative to the invasion, and it was described well by Robin Cook as keeping Saddam “in his cage”.

In other words, an appropriate response to Saddam was to maintain the sanctions against his regime, and the no-fly zones, that were supposed to protect Kurds and Shias. That pressure might eventually have weakened Saddam to the point where forces within Iraq could have overthrown him, with much less bloodshed than the course chosen by Bush and Blair.

So was the British ultra left backing Robin Cook in 2003? Was it calling for a stiffening of sanctions against Saddam, as an alternative to war?

No it wasn’t! The ultra left disgraced itself by opposing both the invasion and the sanctions. In other words, the far left called for no measures at all against Saddam. Their version of internationalism collapsed into business as usual with a tyrant (though few were to express this as clearly as George Galloway as he diligently licked the despot’s boots).

And business as usual with Saddam meant tolerating the torture and mass murder of his opponents. If you are among those who wished to see no measures against the man whose unprovoked war against Iran cost at least half a million deaths, who gassed the main national minority, the Kurds, and ruthlessly wiped out other political opponents, then you have no moral grounds for complaining that Blair’s decision led to a large number of deaths.

Furthermore, much of the mayhem in post-invasion Iraq cannot, with any degree of plausibility, be laid at the door of Bush and Blair. Did Tony Blair order the destruction of Shia mosques? Did George Bush send in suicide bombers against religious processions?

Where is the elementary solidarity that people on the left should be showing to the victims of far-right islamist death squads?

Comment by paul fauvet — 8 February, 2010 @ 9:15 am
#17

Yes, Paul, the left should have called for continued sanctions. After all, they’d only succeeded in killing 1 million or so Iraqi infants up to that point and with more time could have killed more.

What an absolutely depraved and obscene sentiment, which as the title of Richard Seymour’s book reads is nothing more than a liberal defence of murder.

The one thing never mentioned when it came to Saddam, nor is mentioned now vis-a-vis Iran, was the possibility of diplomacy - open and direct negotiations.

The reason why is very clear: US imperialism, along with its Israeli and British junior partners, is simply not interested in anything other than a Roman peace - involving the completed subjugation of any and all opposition to US hegemony in the region.

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 9:24 am
‘… a great many innocent people died.’

Let’s be clear about this;the 2006 Lancet collect data from 1,849 households,12,801 individuals
involved,who represented 47 population clusters in Iraq. They (the doctors)said:

[as a result of the coalition invasion]about 655,000 Iraqis have died above the number that
would be expected in a non-conflict situation,which is equivalent to about 2.5% of the population
in the study area. about 601,000 of these excess deaths were due to violent causes.’

Furthermore, on September 14th 2007,Opinion Business Research,made findings that supported the Lancet data and ‘revealed that 1.2 million Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the March 2003 invasion’,(Source of both quotes/Newspeak in the Twenty first Century).

Both The Independent and Guardian ignored this new data. Gavin Esler gave 34 seconds to it on BBC’s Newsnight.

So my point is let’s not get lazy and talk,almost absurdly,about ‘a great many innocent people dying’.
It doesn’t quite do it justice does it? It only further serves this criminal government’s total,systemic irresponsibilty regarding this matter and we wouldn’t want to promote that , would we?

Comment by bob hope — 8 February, 2010 @ 9:36 am
Here we go again. John rehashes the tired claim that a million Iraqi children died “because of sanctions”.

This is the kind of claim that all regimes under sanctions and their supporters always make. We are always told that sanctions will hurt the most vulnerable members of society.

During the campaign for sanctions against apartheid South Africa, how often were we told, by Reagan and Thatcher and their followers, that “sanctions will hurt the blacks”?

And of course to some extent it was true. Of course the Rhodesian and South African regimes did try and deflect the weight of sanctions onto the most vulnerable people in society, and Saddam did the same. The misfortune of the Iraqi population was not that sanctions were decreed, but that the sanctions were not successful and they continued to live under the heel of a fascist dictator.

The sanctions were imposed because of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. In the space of a decade, Saddam waged war against two of his neighbours. And John believes that the correct response was to call for “open and direct negotiations”. Negotiations over what?

It took military intervention to remove Saddam from Kuwait (military intervention which the British far left opposed). Do you really believe that after a bout of “open democracy” Saddam would have agreed to become a democrat and to dismantle his regime?

The record of negotiating with fascist dictators is not encouraging, as a glance at the history of the 1930s should show you.

Finally, in your last paragraph I think the phrase you are looking for is “Carthaginian peace” - which refers to the utter destruction of the city of Carthage by the Roman Republic in 146 BC. Do you really think the same has happened to Iraq?

Comment by paul fauvet — 8 February, 2010 @ 9:45 am
Sorry I must have typed too fast. The final paragraphs in my last comment should read:

The sanctions were imposed because of Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. In the space of a decade, Saddam waged war against two of his neighbours. And John believes that the correct response was to call for “open and direct negotiations”. Negotiations over what?

It took military intervention to remove Saddam from Kuwait (military intervention which the British far left opposed). Do you really believe that after a bout of “open negotiations” Saddam would have agreed to become a democrat and to dismantle his regime?

The record of negotiating with fascist dictators is not encouraging, as a glance at the history of the 1930s should show you.

Finally, in your last paragraph I think the phrase you are looking for is “Carthaginian peace” - which refers to the utter destruction of the city of Carthage by the Roman Republic in 146 BC. Do you really think the same has happened to Iraq?

Comment by paul fauvet — 8 February, 2010 @ 9:48 am
#20

Well, Paul, when the then US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, says that the price is worth it when asked about the deaths of Iraqi children as a result of sanctions back in 1996, I think your disgraceful attempt at historical revisionism is blown out of the water. Moreover, I seem to recall two UN humanitarian coordinators in Iraq, Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck, resigning one after the other in protest at the barbarity of the sanctions. Perhaps they were in a better position to judge, being there on the ground, than you are now from the comfort of the West and over a decade later.

As to your reference to my comment re a Roman peace, I was referring to the words of the Roman historian Tacitus, who when writing the history of the Roman occupation of Britain, attributed the following words to Calgacus, leader of the last free people on the British isles before battle:

‘Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire (progress); they make a wasteland and call it peace (security).’

A case of history repeating itself, don’t you think?

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:00 am
nice try paul but it ain’t gonna wash
the sanctions regime was responsible for the destruction of the iraqi health service and the impoverishment of the people. maybe u agree with madeline albright, the former us ambassador who when asked is half a million estimated deaths under sanctions a price worth paying -said yes.
for me i say no, it was imperialism and no one on the left should line up with bush and blair Saddam was undoubtedly a vicious leader but he was a weak leader. if the people of romania could overthrow their dictator who also tortured and kiled opponents,why should we not believe that as difficult as it may have been,the people of iraq, iran have the capacity to do the same.its unity from below or its division and sectarian slaughter imposed by above. i don’t see a third choice.
Iraqis never asked for shock and awe, invasion and occupation.they asked for peace and solidarity.
The post war settlement as predicted by president chirac of france was a disaster. A country ripped apart by war and sanctions desperately looked to the occupying forces and the UN for help, jobs,electricity, water… a chance to rebuild, what they got was a neo con occupation and a sectarian carve up. It was according to Alexander Cockburn, the investigative journalist, in his book The Occupation,a year to 18months before resistance, swelled by outrage at the failures of the occupiers,began to take hold which would later descend into civil war.

Comment by graham — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:10 am
you said what i was thinking john.

Comment by graham — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:12 am
To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire (progress); they make a wasteland and call it peace (security).’

A case of history repeating itself, don’t you think?

Yeah. Apart from the roads, public order, medicine, wine, sanitation, water and literacy, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Comment by Boab — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:16 am
Spoken like a true imperialist Boab. Of course you forgot to mention slavery, unremitting war, human despair, degradation, occupation, and the destruction of national cultures on a grand scale.

As for literacy, here you reveal a woeful and inadequate grasp of the history of Roman culture, which merely plagiarised Greek culture as its own.

You should read more. It’ll do you the world of good.

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:22 am
And of course, John predictably produces that notorious Madeleine Albright quote.

He fails to mention that she retracted it later, and wrote: “I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations. … I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own”.

It is dishonest to go on repeating Albright’s televised gaffe as considered policy when it clearly wasn’t.

In the decade after the invasion of Kuwait, child mortality in Iraq did indeed increase sharply - and Saddam’s regime, and its apologists across the globe, blamed sanctions for this.

But there was an interesting exception. In the north of the country, in Iraqi Kurdistan, child mortality actually declined in that decade. In that part of the country the United Nations was directly in charge of the relief programmes, whereas in southern Iraq it was the regime that decided who received food and who didn’t.

I draw a simple conclusion from this - children are more likely to die in places where a fascist dictator is in charge than in places where he is not.

As for John’s call for “open negotiations”, there is another word for this. It’s an ugly word, with a long and ugly history. It’s called appeasement.

Comment by paul fauvet — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:23 am
#27

Paul, yet again you come up with a very weak counter to the facts. Infant mortality may very well have declined in the North for the Kurds. Why? Simply because the north had come under the writ of the US and UK with their no-fly zones. The writ of the central govt ceased to exist in all but name by then, which of course had nothing to do with the oil fields located in Kirkuk.

The fact is the West was intent on making the entire Iraqi population suffer as long as Saddam was in power. They wanted him out and a client govt in. This was the policy right from the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

As for your use of the word ‘appeasement’, this falls under the category of using echoes of Hitler to demonise any regime which the West decrees inimical to its objective of free market hegemony. Trying to compare Saddam to Hitler is about as ahistorical as it gets. The fact is that since the end of the Second World War western imperialism/capitalism has accounted for more death and destruction than Hitler ever did. But, hey, bandy around words like democracy and freedom and you can kill and impoverish as many people as you like, can’t you?

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:40 am
“As for literacy, here you reveal a woeful and inadequate grasp of the history of Roman culture, which merely plagiarised Greek culture as its own.”

Is that why the Greek alphabet and Roman are totally different John? Can you give me some examples of pre Roman literacy on these islands? Perhaps you could write your next post in Ogham.

As regards the Romans merely plagiarising Greek culture, Roman culture took much more from the Etruscans.

You also chose to quote Tacitus. An interesting choice. Tacitus, as I am sure you know, was Agricola’s son in law and the whole thing was written to suck up to his new Emperor / father in law. There are echoes of Tacitus’ work in the Declaration of Arbroath, with similar echoes surrounding the myths of Wallace, all based on that prototype national hero, Calgacus.

Bigging-up the defeated opponent was a common technique in most histories. After all, where was the glory in defeating a disorganised band of tattooed chavs? Had he written:

“Arrived in Scotland. Killed some locals. Weather shite. Soil crap. Don’t like it. Fuck all here. Let’s build a couple of walls to keep them where they are and pay the lot in the lowlands a bit of silver to keep the others at bay.”

Agricola would have been less than pleased. In between times, think about the highland lowland divide, where the two walls were, the fact that lowland Scotland was occupied for about 70 out of 400 years, England for 400 of 400 and the highlands not at all, and the subsequent effect on the history of the north of these islands.

Comment by Boab — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:51 am
#29

‘As regards the Romans merely plagiarising Greek culture, Roman culture took much more from the Etruscans.’

Sorry, Boab, but this is complete garbage. The Hellenization of Roman culture, laws, and art is self evident if you care to study it. For your edification, here’s a good article on the subject.

http://kekrops.tripod.com/Hellenistic_Files/Impact_On_Rome.html

You might also try the works of Seneca, Arrian, and of course Plutarch’s comparative history.

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 11:07 am
Its incredible to me that Fauvet can now, after all we know, continue to regurgitate defences of Madelaine Albright, garbage attempting to equate opponents of the sanctions campaign with appeasers of Hitler, and all the rest of the utterly discredited rubbish which led us into this utterly disasterous war. He does’nt expect to be taken seriously surely? On sanctions in Iraq he should read the analyses of Herring:

http://www.casi.org.uk/conf99/doc/herring.html

Comment by johng — 8 February, 2010 @ 12:03 pm
John

Rome was built buy the Etruscans about 750 BC. Rome became independent around 500. The references you gave all write about 800 years after the event. Seneca was a Spaniard, but more importantly Plutarch and Arrian were Greeks, so they may have had a bit of Greek bias in their thoughts on the origins of Roman culture.

Plutarch goes into some detail about the possible origins of Rome, but from memory I think he settles on the Romulus and Remus story. He does mention the Tyrrhenians, an early name for the Etruscans, but goes into little detail. During their campaign for independence from the Etruscans, the Latinae enlisted help from their Greek neighbours in the south and the Etruscans sided with Carthage. The Roman alphabet is Etruscan, which itself evolved from an archaic Greek form, which in turn had evolved from Cuneiform.

The Etruscan Gods Tinia, Uni and Menerva became Jupiter Juno and Minerva. By about 300 BC the Etruscans had been fully absorbed into Rome and pretty much disappeared from history.

Have a look at some of teh Etruscan tomb art and you will see the influences.

http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?coll_package=26091

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/art/gallery.html

http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/art/art.html

Comment by Boab — 8 February, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
Boab why would the ethnic origins of the Romans be a decisive question in a debate about Hellenisation and its influence in creating the Roman Empire? I very much enjoy the obsession with ‘BIAS’ though. Plutarch is as bad as the left wing liberal BBC and its multi-culturalism nonsense. Obviously.

Comment by johng — 8 February, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
I see Johng has joined the other John in mouthing his incredulity that a socialist might think it a good idea to overthrow a fascist regime.

Let’s summarise the thinking of that strain of the left represented by the two Johns:

1. No military action should have been taken against Saddam Hussein when he annexed Kuwait, or at any later stage.
2. No sanctions should have been decreed against Iraq because of the annexation of Kuwait.
3. The correct measure was to negotiate with Saddam (but without threatening any military option).
4. Under no circumstance should anyone talk about Adolf Hitler, who was absolutely unique, and bears no relation to any modern politician.

I think it’s fair to say that if this sage advice had been followed, Saddam Hussein, or possibly one of his equally loathsome sons, would still be in power.

The term appeasement does not just refer to Neville Chamberlain’s disastrous visit to Munich. In fact, while sanctions were in place against Iraq, Western politicians embarked on an exercise in appeasement against another aggressor, this time in the Balkans.

John thinks you deal with aggressors by talking to them. John Major and Douglas Hurd would agree. For when Slobodan Milosevic launched his wars against Croatia and Bosnia, the British conservative government decided that Milosevic was a chap they could do business with.

So, while Sarajevo was under siege, and while Bosnian moslems and Croats were expelled from their homes across vast swathes of the country, British and American diplomats talked to Milosevic. They talked and talked, for about three years. And, just as Czechoslovakia had been carved up on the Munich negotiating table, so maps of Bosnia were drawn up, seeing how best to dismember the country.

No doubt the two Johns cheered on this exercise in “open negotiation”, rather than offering any solidarity to the people of Bosnia. And did this negotiation stop the killing? The widows of Srebrenica are perhaps in the best position to answer that question.

John plays the numbers game, claiming that “western imperialism/capitalism has accounted for more death and destruction than Hitler ever did”. This just reminds me of the way that apologists for real American crimes say that socialism is much worse than capitalism because of the millions killed by Stalin and Mao.

Making generalisations about imperialist atrocities does not help the victims of barbaric regimes, in the Middle East or in the Balkans. But because their oppressors are not the American or British governments the two Johns would happily leave them to their fate.

John implies that somehow Saddam’s regime was better than “a client regime”, by which I suppose he means the current Iraqi government. Try asking Iraqi communists or trade unionists whether they agree.

Comment by paul fauvet — 8 February, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
#34

I think it is clear by now that Paul Fauvet is nothing more than your bog standard apologist for imperialism and the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children as long as it is done in the cause of ‘democracy, freedom, and western civilization’. Saddam is evil, Milosevic is evil, and that is all he needs to know in his Manichean worldview, one he shares with messrs Bush, Blair, and every other adherent of the onward Christian soldiers school of humanity.

For him Saddam was a phenomenon completely detached from any kind of historical process. Never mind an entire history of western colonialism and intervention in the region. Maps are drawn and redrawn, nations are built, rulers imposed and deposed at will, all in accordance with the aims and objectives of Washington. Yet for Paul Fauvet this history of imperialism does not exist. Instead he prefers to focus on those bogeymen set up and knocked down as a smokescreen in the interests of an economic system predicated on profit regardless of human, social or environmental cost.

Blood lust comes under many guises. For the Paul Fauvet’s of this world it comes with a liberal integument.

Twas ever thus.

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
I tell you what Paul makes a good argument for the war. If Blair could argue like this the pro-war arguments would have been stronger.

Despite this I still think the war was wrong. Saddam staying on in power would have been the lesser of two evils.

Alot of people on here seem to be upset about the sanctions killing one million people (even though they dont source this claim). Its surprising that the same people are always the first to call for sanctions against Israel.

I get the impression that the two John’s are principally opposed to any war Britain and the US fights. Had they been around in 1939 I’m convinced they would have drawn the wrong conclusions
George Orwell wrote:

‘The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life…but there us a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of Western Democracy and admiration of totalitalitarianism…one find that they do not by any means express impartial disaproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the US’.

Comment by Owen — 8 February, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
Paul you are aware that this is a socialist blog? I don’t really understand why you bother coming here to bang the war drum. Go over to Harry’s Place. They’ll love you there..

Comment by johng — 8 February, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
Typical johng not facing up to the arguments but indulging in pointless name calling.

Do you have any counter arguments to Paul’s excellent post johng ?

The other john’s argument seems to be basically that a fledgling democracy is not better than a nasty tyranny cos the US was involved in getting rid of the dictator therefore the whole endeavour is “imperialist”.

Very progressive.

Oh and the other “point” is that people get killed in wars to get rid of fascist dictators. Amazing.

Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 8 February, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
#36

You see, Owen, this is the kind of nonsense you end up espousing when you are in possession of an analysis absent of substance. Being a socialist, I understand capitalism as an economic and social system which lies at the root of poverty, war, and every other man made catastrophe in our world today. Its need to expand beyond national borders has given rise to colonialism and imperialism, which has the effect of distorting the economic, social, and political landscape of those nations which are victim to it, thus giving rise to the instability we see in regions such as the Middle East.

So when you say infantile things like ‘I get the impression that the two John’s are principally opposed to any war Britain and the US fights’ you really do embarrass yourself.

Try thinking before posting once in a while. It really does make all the difference.

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
#38

If I consistently posted laughable statements such as this I’d probably do so under a silly psuedonym like MoreMediaNonsense as well.

Obviously the work of an individual with a brain that weighs 3lbs lighter than a meringue.

Comment by John — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
What argument? I really didn’t notice one.

Comment by johng — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
The Liberal bombers believe that war is caused by nasty men (often with moustaches) who need to be stopped by nice men (usually without moustaches). Those without moustaches need to to all stick togeather and bomb those with moustaches whenever they get out of line, and soon war and moustaches will both be abolished, as moustache free regime is established by the strongest men without moustaches.

On the other hand there are those of us who believe that war is the product of a world system based on competitive accumulation where price competition is combined with military competition the result being a hierarchy of nation states which we call imperialism.

We think something has to be done about this, and we don’t think making sure everyone is clean shaven is likely to issue in any large scale social change.

On the issue of the sanctions I think the arguments of Herring dispensed with all that nonsense years and years ago. Just because there are still a few moustache shaver enthusiasts still wandering about is no need for the rest of us to endlessly have to repeat long established arguments. Join Blair on one of his yaughts. I’m sure he loves going over his lost arguments over and over again.

Comment by johng — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
And Paul..did you advocate the invasion of South Africa in the 1980s?

Comment by johng — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
“I’m sure he loves going over his lost arguments over and over again”.

This is a deeply ironic statement coming from a Troskyite.

Any chance of somewhat more substantive, less hirsute response to Paul’s cogent post above?

Comment by steelcityblue — 8 February, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
Johng (42.) is probably the best explanation of liberal imperialism I have seen yet

Comment by christian h. — 8 February, 2010 @ 11:33 pm
Sorry what arguments exactly (never mind cogent ones)? He does’nt argue. He simply asserts. Why does Paul Fauvet believe that war is the best way of reforming the world? Why should people be corralled into such a perverse and self defeating world view? Its clearly an utter failure and has produced nothing but terrible failure and suffering. I have friends in Pakistan. Should they eagerly be awaiting invasion?

Comment by johng — 9 February, 2010 @ 12:08 am
I see that my posts on this thread have reduced the two Johns to fuming and incoherent rage - I shall take that as a compliment, and assume I have won the argument.

This is the second time during a Socialist Unity discussion that johng has claimed that, because I don’t agree with him, I can’t be a socialist, and am not worthy of posting comments on a socialist blog. Sorry to disappoint you, John, but you don’t have the power of excommunication.

And obviously I do not believe that “war is the best way of reforming the world”. If you bother to read the discussion all the way through, you will find that I opposed the Iraq war, and agreed with Robin Cook that the appropriate way to bring down Saddam Hussein was through the UN sanctions.

Of course, when I make that argument, I am accused of infanticide, and am told that the best method of handling murderous aggressors is to talk with them.

Johng asks whether I advocated invading South Africa in the 1980s. No - I was a member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and we called for comprehensive sanctions against apartheid. Exactly the same position which I believe should have been taken against Saddam.

I don’t recall anybody on the left opposing sanctions against apartheid. It was Thatcher and the right who made the claims that sanctions would only harm black South Africans (the equivalent to your argument that sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq were a form of infanticide).

Had sanctions been imposed in the 1970s, or the early 80s, then apartheid, which was always heavily dependent on foreign investment, and imported fuel (despite the grotesquely expansive oil-from-coal programme), could not have survived. Of course, the regime would have tried to deflect the impact of sanctions onto ordinary South Africans. The ANC expected that to happen, and explicitly stated that it was willing to pay the price of a short term increase in suffering in order to secure freedom in the long term.

The arguments of the two Johns, towards both Iraq and the Balkans, is that there should have been no western intervention at all. This philosophy of “non-intervention” is precisely what the British and French governments preached during the Spanish Civil War, and which the left of the 1930s bitterly opposed.

In those days, the left believed in resisting aggression and fighting against fascism, and anti-fasicts were even prepared to lay down their lives on the battlefields of Spain.

Nobody was organising International Brigades for Bosnia - but the least the British left could have done was demand vigorous action to lift the siege of Sarajevo and defend the territorial integrity of Bosnia. Instead the kind of left represented by the two Johns became unwitting henchmen of real war criminals such as Slobodan Milosevic and Ratko Mladic.

The message from the two Johns to people who are oppressed, but whose oppressors are not allies of the United States, is quite simply “we’re not interested. Your struggle does not fit into our paradigm. If you’re not victims of imperialism, then you’re not really victims at all”.

Comment by paul fauvet — 9 February, 2010 @ 7:03 am
#47

You must be thinking of another John, cause I sure haven’t been fulminating. In fact, I think if you take the trouble to read what I actually wrote rather than impute your own spin on it you’ll find that yet again, when dealing with a grubby apologist for occupation, invasion and salughter, I took your silly line of argument apart.

I have to say that in your case it wasn’t very difficult to do.

You see, Paul, what you suffer from is an historical analysis that starts at 9/11. Like many former socialists, leftists, and progressives, you jumped so high with shock and horror in response to this tragic event that you landed on the right. Suddenly western civilization, capitalism, liberalism didn’t seem so bad after all. In fact, it made perfect sense in a chaotic world, where danger lurks in every nook and cranny, danger presented by people who worship a lesser god and have dark skin.

These people need to be told how to organise their lives, require good old whitey to run their affairs. And when they get the silly notion into their heads that they can thumb their noses at whitey, they have to be put back in their box.

This, in the lump, summarises your analysis. Of course, you attempt to put up the same progressive smokescreen as other charlatans do - you know the type - Hitchens, Levy, the Euston Manifesto crowd - by invoking bogeymen such as Saddam as justification for slaughter on a mass scale.

Saddam, like Milosevic (democratically elected Milosevic) appeared from out of nowhere. He didn’t exist prior to 9/11, was never that darling of the West. Halabja was never played down by his US friends at the time, alibied away as collateral damage during a battle between Iraqi and Iranian forces near the border. But Saddam killed thousands of Iraqis. Yes, there was an uprising Paul, one initiated by the US. During armed uprisings existing govts normally do use force in retaliation. The deaths of those thousands of Shia and Kurds who believed the US when they said rise up we will support you are the responsibility of those who knew perfectly well what would happen when they did. For the last thing they wanted was the people to decide their own govt. And given the way that Iraqi was drawn on a map by British and French generals post WW1, they knew that without a dictator at the helm the country would fall apart. All they were concerned to ensure is that it was their dictator at the helm, and not one with pretensions of independence and uniting the Arab world, as Saddam had become. Can’t have that, can we - especially not when the country sits on a sea of oil.

Saddam was a product of US foreign policy. As was Bin Laden. As was the Shah. As was Pinochet and Suharto. As were the contras in Nicaragua and El Salvador. By now I’m sure even you can begin to see a pattern emerge.

But for you and yours the West is never anything than a force for good in the world, required to keep those pesky natives in line. 9/11 proved that the world had changed, that in the words of Mr Blair, heir to Churchill’s legacy, the calculus of risk had changed.

So who’s next, Paul? Who shall we take out now? Ah, Ahamdinejad. Good idea.

Yee-hah boys? Let’s get em!

Comment by John — 9 February, 2010 @ 7:44 am
I missed this pearl of wisdom: ‘I am accused of infanticide, and am told that the best method of handling murderous aggressors is to talk with them.’

So now the 12 years of sanctions in Iraq were not responsible for the deaths of half a million children. UN officials - Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck - who resigned in protest at the cruelty inflicted on the Iraqi people were mistaken.

Or was it a case of Saddam starving his own people, like Tony Blair said. Of course it was. After all, when Iraq requested medicines and medical supplies from the UN, it was Saddam who turned them down. When they asked for essential parts to repair sewage plants, it was Saddam who said no. When they even asked for pencils Saddam put his foot down.

He really was some man, that Saddam, able to manipulate the UN into tightening the sanctions on the Iraqi people at a whim.

As for talking to murderous aggressors, there is a precedent you know. It’s called the special relationship.

Comment by John — 9 February, 2010 @ 8:05 am
48# John

“As was Allenda” Many of us who have read the Popular Unity Program will not accept your pro imperialist stance on Chile. Your unguarded remark comes over that way.
The blog’s caption can be applied to your stinking thinking regards Allende

Comment by LarryN — 9 February, 2010 @ 8:43 am
#50

Suggest you read the passage again Larry. I amended it. My mistake.

Comment by John — 9 February, 2010 @ 8:46 am
47 - ‘Of course, when I make that argument, I am accused of infanticide, and am told that the best method of handling murderous aggressors is to talk with them.’

When of course, the best method is to be murderous aggressors ourselves.

Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 9 February, 2010 @ 8:49 am
I did see those words “as was Allenda” in your post and when I went back to it, it was changed to Pinochet.

Comment by LarryN — 9 February, 2010 @ 8:59 am
Thanks for correction John. Your post of 48# I fully agree and in tune with.

Comment by LarryN — 9 February, 2010 @ 9:04 am
John claims that I “invoke bogeymen such as Saddam”.

Webster’s dictionary defines the word “bogeyman” as “a monstrous imaginary figure used in threatening children”.

So as far as John is concerned, Saddam Hussein was an imaginary monster and not a real murderous, warmongering dictator at all. It’s a pity he didn’t inform the peoples of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait of ths insight.

Comment by paul fauvet — 9 February, 2010 @ 9:25 am
#55

This the best you can do, Paul.

Pretty weak, I’d say.

Comment by John — 9 February, 2010 @ 10:10 am
Paul Fauvet, Your High noon approach has been resigned to the dustbin of history.
“Only the American coalition of the willing puppets” have your aspirations of blood letting and scorched earth solutions. Try and refrain from the genocidal fantasies. keep with sensible discussion of Socialist Unity, or fuck off you stalinist

Comment by LarryN — 9 February, 2010 @ 10:14 am
Waal! Paul has got a Webster pocket dictionary. I felt his pocket and it was hard and I thought he was being friendly with me. I am so disappointed

Comment by LarryN — 9 February, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Paul, you are arguing largely by analogy, and arguments by analogy are always suspect. Iraq wasn’t Chile, nor was it South Africa or Nazi Germany. So the mechanical transposition of policies designed for one case to the other probably won’t work.

OK, we all supported sanctions against South Africa. But it was pretty clear what the sanctions were for - the end of apartheid, one person one vote, in other words - regime change. The changes had to come from within, the alternative leadership, the ANC, already existed, enjoyed majority support and was more or less ready to take over. It was also the main advocate of the sanctions.

None of this really applied to Iraq. “Regime change” was never the official justification for the sanctions, although it was the only real rationale for them. There was no united anti-Saddam movement ready to take over. And the sanctions gave the Iraqi government the perfect scapegoat for all the country’s ills - blame the West, blame the sanctions. It is impossible to unpick how much of the suffering of Iraq’s population up to 2003 can be attributed to sanctions, and how much can be attributed to the callous indifference and corruption of the Ba’athist regime. It seems safe to assume that both played a part. But politically, the sanctions probably served not to undermine, but to reinforce his regime domestically. Here an analogy probably is valid - Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, where the consequences of his government’s corrpution and ineptitude are all blamed on “sanctions”.

Like you, Paul, I don’t make a fetish of “anti-imperialism” or raise it above all other considerations. But I don’t think we should follow Kipling and “take up the white man’s burden” across the world. The security of the Middle East has to be the responsibility of the people who live there - and they are the only people who can create any lasting peace there, if anyone can. We can argue about how far our governments’ intentions were good or malign. But I can’t see that anyone can be pleased with the outcome.

Comment by Francis King — 9 February, 2010 @ 10:49 am
LarryN (57) to Paul Fauvet: “keep with sensible discussion of Socialist Unity, or fuck off you stalinist”.
I don’t agree with Fauvet’s arguments at all - and neither would 99 per cent of Communist Party members around the world, many of whom have been fully part of the struggles against US and British imperialism. But presumably we are also among the “stalinists” to whom LarryN refers, along with non-CP member Paul Fauvet.
LarryN’s shallow, divisive mindset and his low abuse (”sensibe discussion!”) don’t add anything to the anti-imperialist cause.

Comment by Party hack — 9 February, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
#60

Best not rise to the bait though - this sort of insult is part of the unavoidable overhead of on-line debate; if you can learn to treat it as background noise and ignore it is the best policy

Comment by Andy Newman — 9 February, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
Since at least the 1950s, when the British/Americans fall foul of some nation, the guy in charge of that nation always becomes Hitler, for some reason. Eden, for example, denounced Nasser as a new Hitler. The propaganda treatment often precedes invasion of the guy’s country. As in Suez, 1956 and elsewhere later on.

The USA’s efforts at “full spectrum dominance” make the Greater German Reich look like a somewhat megalomaniac district council. Who’s to say the new Hitler isn’t the “West”?

Comment by Mark Victorystooge — 9 February, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
I would point out to the party hack. I am well aware of that a high percentage of world wide of tankie and euro communist have opposed US & British Imperialism.

It is apparent that when People see a counter view that is just as bad, and point out it was the idealogy of Stalin,the well named “Party Hack”, begins to protest too much.
Keep your views as I am entitled to mine, even it is a bit of a baiting.
Take Andy Newman’s advice don’t rise to it Party Hack. Where is your cadre training?. Is it as far away as your first meal?

Comment by LarryN — 9 February, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 February, 2010

HE LIED THOUSANDS DIED.

61 Comments »

Leave a comment