Stop me before I kill again, pleads Straw.
The Guardian: Iraq war is a step to freedom, says Straw
Jack Straw will argue today that the Iraq war has brought about important steps towards democratic reform in the Middle East.
The foreign secretary will attack critics of the war for failing to support “a vision of how to change the world for the better”.
I suppose what he means is that all the dead are now free to go to a “better” place. Iraq’s loss is Jack’s cuttings file’s gain.
After all, you can’t make a democracy omellette without breaking a few heads, scattering the place with cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and stirring up just about every fundamentalist yahoo with an AK-47 and a hard-on for the 72 virgins in the region.
The merest suggestion that the deaths of at least 16,000 people is “a vision of how to change the world for the better” has got to be just about the crassest thing I’ve heard since Geoff Hoon said he thought victims of coalition cluster bombs might one day say “thank you”. They really couldn’t give a toss could they?
You know what would really change the world for the better? If Jack Straw would take his stupid fat mouth, verbal incontinence and craven, Mugabe-appeasing toss to a trappist monastery. Unspeakable little tick.
UPDATE: Straw’s speech in full.
Faced with an American Government of the Right promoting a vision of how to change the world for the better, many on the Left have become the staunchest advocates of the status quo. For them, President Bush’s commitment to promoting freedom and democracy is simplistic; misguided; or as simply a veil for more sinister motives. The traditional positions of realists and idealists seem to have been reversed. Indeed one of the charges which we as students made in the 1960s and 1970s against the United States was their support for non-democratic regimes in Latin America, in the name of stability. So a United States that is committed to the spread of freedom today should be embraced by all of us.
The view from the moral highground must be exhilarating. Even from the summit of a pile of corpses.
Posted on March 10th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
| See also • Joined Up Thinking • Da bomblet • Jack Straw: lifting, explaining, hiding |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Iraq, T.W.A.T., UK politics |
• |
“The merest suggestion that the deaths of at least 16,000 people is ‘a vision of how to change the world for the better has got to be just about the crassest thing I’ve heard ..’”
Oh well, there goes WWII, and there was me thinking it was all worthwhile!
Who mentioned WWII? I was talking about the Iraq war and its implications.
Let’s get down to brass tacks David. You are nothing but an educated troll, taking pleasure in winding up “trots” as you see us and contributing next to nothing. If it were fun/stimulating to engage with you I would. But it’s not so I won’t.
Feel free to post comments here but don’t expect a reply from me. Go and bother someone else with your wilful misconstruing and supercilious attitude.
Touch snippy this morning, aren’t we?
I was merely attempting to point out that the general statement, “The merest suggestion that the deaths of at least 16,000 people is ‘a vision of how to change the world for the better..” is anything but crass. It all depends on the circs. It also depends on the outcome. Let us suppose, merely for the sake of argument that Iraq does cobble together some sort of polity that keeps the three sections of their country together, and that in their own rough and ready fashion, the populace has the chance to ‘turn the rascals out’ in regular elections. I am not sanguine about the chances of this happening, but just suppose…
Would you then say that 16,000 deaths (your figures) would be worth it?
(Oh, I just remembered, you’re not talking to me. The ‘Trot-lot Tendency’ remind me of the old joke of St. Peter showing someone around heaven and warning the new arrival not to make any noise when passing a high-walled stackade. “Why not”, asks the newcomer. “Because the Presbyterians are in their, and they think they’re the only ones here”, replies St. Peter.)
Ok.
David, if you want to debate with me then debate with me. You’re clearly an intelligent person with many interesting things to say but I find your inflammatory gobshitery a turn off - where’s the need? As you can probably imagine there are no people in my immediate circle with your standpoint and views and I would welcome the opportunity to test my views against someone like you. Just without the snide remarks and abuse.
I can’t in all seriousness see parallels between the Iraq war and WWII. Other than the disposal of a totalitarian regime (here’s the obligatory Yay!) I see no similarities. I’m showing my pacifist streak here but I believe there were/are mechanisms to deal with Saddam without war but the political will to do so was, erm, lacking.
And I’m afraid the “Would you then say that 16,000 deaths (your figures) would be worth it?” argument smacks of gambling with other people’s chips. The likes of Blair and David Aaronovitch should don their tin hats and take a few potshots theselves before being so dismissive.
(BTW, the 16,000 is Iraq Bodycount’s figures. I fear the real figure will never be known and is much higher.)
If, as you intimate, you are a *total* pacifist, we have no argument, not least because there is nothing to argue about. Such a stance is a matter of fundamental principle. One might, according to taste, ascribe some adjectives to it, but debate can there be none. Also, one can only ever be a *total* pacifist because, like a virgin, one can’t be partly so.
I picked you up because you implied a *general* proposition as to whether or not war and death could ever produce a ‘good’ result, hence my reference to WWII.
But let us stick to Iraq. I could, and still can, see some good arguments *against* the war, but in my view they are far outweighed by the arguments in favour. There may not be very much for us to debate, because what I think of as arguments *against* the war, would not be ones that you would use. Similarly, my arguments in *favour* of the war (which do not include democracy for Iraq, a matter of little interest to me, either way) would not be meaningful for you.
For a start, I suspect (but tell me if I’m wrong) that morality and/or legalism is important to your approach. Neither are of any importance to me. I judge the result entirely on the basis of whether or not it furthers the interest of my country - and that’s not alwyas easy to decide before, during or even after the event!
There, you see, I can behave myself if I try, but you must forgive my odd bits of acerbity, or just ignore them. My motto tends to be, “No Cheap Cracks Ever Knowingly Avoided!”
I think before Iraq you would have caught me in the pacifist/virginity trap but I’ve foolwed the war from run-up, through prosecution, to aftermath and I’m unshakeably convinced it was a needless war. As I said, the machinery was there to avoid it.
You’re right to pin me down on my morality/legalism reservations although the legality is a very distant second. I’m beating the drum over the Attorney General’s advice only because trying to pin Blair on the morality seems very much a busted flush.
Like you say though, we’ve reached something of a stalemate and not for the reasons I thought we might - ie. intractably butting heads.
Blimey. Do call again.
Fair enough, but allow me to insist a little on my ‘thought experiment’. We are both, perhaps, doubtful that much of a democratic polity will emerge in Iraq, but let us suppose that it does, albeit, in rough and ready form. Would you then rescind your opinion on the uselessness of the 16,000 deaths? If the answer is ‘no’, then I am entitled to ask if it is a numbers game, in which case, how many dead *would* be acceptable; or is it a matter of principle, along the lines of, ‘no beneficial ends can justify immoral means’?
I’m probably walking into a trap here and I’m not fond of these “kill one child to save the world” exercises - politicians refuse to indulge in hypothetical and I don’t really see why I should either, but here goes.
For me it’s not a numbers game. I live in a shamelessly utopian fantasy where I don’t understand why it was necessary for a single person to die to oust Saddam. If Iraq becomes a shining beacon of democracy in the region and the dominoes fall, I still don’t think the cost was worth it - even one life. We are, after all - as we’re constantly reminded by our leaders - the Good Guys. You can’t wear the white hat if you’re bombing the shit out of civilians.
Like I said, I believe this war could have been avoided *and* Saddam ousted without a single bullet fired - it could have been done through the UN had the political will been there. And if reports are to be believed, the Iraqi regime blinked on the eve of war and frantically offered concessions but by then the fix was in.
I’ve looked at some of the photographs of what was done to the civilian population by their so-called liberators which I’m guessing is more that Blair and Bush have done. And aside from the sickening cost in lives, there are thousands of survivors who will never, ever forgive us for what we did to them. And these grudges will be passed on for generations.
There was no trap, I was genuinely interested in your response and I applaud your honesty.
But, if you will allow me, I would like to drag you a little further down this philosophical though experiment. Just suppose, only for the sake of argument, that your UN hopes had failed, and that an over-confident Sadaam turned again on the Kurds (or the Iranians, or the Kuwaitis) and killed, say, 16k or more of them. How would that weigh in your moral scales?
(I say again, I am not trying to catch you out, I only wish to explore you rthinking.)
Not wishing to dodge the question but I find this hypothetical situation has so many caveats and provisos attached as to be almost meaningless.
I wasn’t advocating putting Saddam back in his box where he could again become a danger to his neighbours. And anyway, we’ve seen from the aftermath of the war that Iraq was pretty much economically and militarily knackered and Saddam was reduced to enjoying his internal repressions. Was he in a position for another foreign misadventure?
Also, he’d seen the US’s ability to put 200,000 troops on his doorstep relatively quickly. That would tend to focus the mind quite sharply I imagine.
As for him returning to his WMD programmes - a nuclear programme is right out because you can’t disguise the required infrastructure from satellite photography. I’d argue that a reformed sanctions, import restrictions and sanctions regime could/would put abrake on the rest.
But *if* he were to do what you suggest then acts of external agression are covered by international law and something would have to be done. Which of course, leaves me exposed.
“Which of course, leaves me exposed”
Not at all! I simply wanted to establish that you were not a pacifist. Thus, *in certain specific circumstances*, but *excluding* the ones that occurred, the death of 16,000 people might actually be beneficial, or at least, necessary.