If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm still no clearer what you're wibbling about.
What makes you think the left has abandoned those principles?
When you talk about the 'mainstream' left, you're talking about people who aren't leftists at all. Few genuinely socialist organisation have any serious form of political representation other than a few clowns in hollyrood.
THose in the anti-war camp are defending a brutal status quo where Saddamist and Islamist ideology stand unchallenged in the Middle East. Anyone with even a hint of concern for the people of the Middle East should have supported the war and should support the new Iraqi government.
I would add however that I didn't know that, and presumably most of the one 1.7m+ people who attended the historic 2003 march didn't know that, and frankly couldn't care less. It's not who claims to be the voice of the anti-war movement, but being against the war that counts.
I'm quite sick- as are you- of people like Matadore trying to tar every individual who opposed the war with the same brush and pretend they all are 'loony lefties' or 'Saddam supporters'.
Might as well say that all right of centre people are fascists and nazis.
They refused to support a war against fascism to liberate a captive population. Thats all the evidence needed.
Of course you are Saddam supporters. If the anti war camp had had its way Saddam would still be brutalizing the Iraqi people for his own vile ends.
Not that you have much support for removing fascists and dictators anyway. :rolleyes: Only those who are no use to the Republican neo-con world agenda.
Left wingers say something he disagrees with:
:yeees:
Oh dear, seems you have slipped so far into your delusions and the projection thereof upon others you have mistakingly replaced "left" for "right".
Those who launched this war, according to a clever PR rebranding exercising of "pre-emptive defence" for "war of aggression" on the basis of a roster of lies and politically pressured "intelligence" assessments (known to have originated almost entirely from Ahmed Chalabi and his grasping INC cohorts) are the ones who need to address their "moral relativism".
For these, the "rule of law" is either that which only applies to those OTHER countries/leaders which our wholly selective and sanitised corporate media decides to target (and always only those who are out of favour for inhibiting in some way our corporate hegemonic aspirations) or else as certain other typically media-fed warmongers here have laughing claimed, "does not exist".
Well, if it only exists for some then it is no "rule" but merely a pretext for "might makes right" which is a morally bankrupt perspective in itself. If it doesn't exist at all then again all attempts to justify war of aggression against another sovereign nation state based on supposed stipulations of any given UN resolution are again reduced to "might makes right". Thusly, the irrational and intellectually/morally inconsistent apologists for the resurgence of unbridled US neo-colonialist militarism show themselves without any moral foundation whatsoever.
All the more so when the reality behind the sanitised and largely ignored reality of crimes against humanity, war crimes et al by not only the armed forces, but the substantial numbers of CIA/Mossad and contract mercenary sociopaths also operating throughout both Iraq and Afghanistan surfaces through independent research.
What the "no international law" apologists should consider as well is the utter disrespect their moral relativitistic denials show for the sacrifices of our grnadfathers in WWII made precisely to establish the principles intended to prevent such unilateralist aggression from going uncondemned and unpunished.
If a refresher course is necessary for such moral relativists, I refer them to the clear and unequivocal text of the Nuremberg Principles.
Touched a nerve did I? Sick of defending Saddams regime already?
Notice I said nearly always. There are notable exceptions on the left and I admore their courage in standing up to their sheep-like fellows on this issue.
Certainly it does. I have no problem with US power being used to put the world to rights.
As for international law, it can go to hell for all I care. It did nothing to stop the massacres in Yugoslavia, Rwanda or Darfur. It did nothing about Saddam. It can rot.
So long as he can see the American flag waving and lots of smiling pundits saying "all is improving" (not surprisingly the very same who are tied to vested interests profitting handsomely off the renewed US militarism in the region), he thinks it must be so.
Gullibility and naivete are indeed bliss for some.
Remember Pinochet? I should I remind you what you thought of him and the US government that helped him steal power?
You know perfectly well that if this was 20 years ago you would have been here supporting Saddam Hussein and defending the US government for giving him weapons and aid. So less moral fucking high ground and bullshit about supporting fascism and dictatorships please :rolleyes:
Is it? Since when have I once advocated a realist foreign policy?
Its sad that the anti-war left cares more about the actions of the US government 20 years ago than about opposing fascism here today, in the present.
Even though 1 in 20 Iraqis are now dead and it's been reported over the last few days that a civil war has effectively kicked off?
Instead of criticising socialists, how about criticising the UK & US governments over the last few decades for their support of people far worse than saddam...pinochet & suharto being prime examples. What you fail (or don't want) to see is that all these people have one thing in common...support from the West, providing it suits the West.
Are they? Names and quotes please (not Galloway). I seem to remember it was mostly the left raising issues of dictatorships in the middle east while the US and the UK were trading with them and arming them.
Logic ain't your strong point is it?
I didnt know a million Iraqis had been killed.
Its not a civil war. Thats hysterical media hubris.
I can see it perfectly well. I am pleased to see that the Bush administration has enacted a more iedological foreign policy, althought it is still a way off a pure version of liberal interventionism.
If you continue to believe that the war had anything to do with that or is anywhere near reaching those goals then you're a blind fool.
Do you support immediate military action against Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Hu Jintao in China, Than Shwe in Burma, Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, Crown Prince Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, Teododo Obiang Nguema in Equatorial Guinea, Omar al-Bashir in Sudan, and Saparmurat Niyazov in Tajikistan?
If not, then by your standards, that means that you fully support these men and their dictatorships in everything they do.
Why not Galloway? He is the face of the anti-war movement. Its funny to see you wanting quotes but not from the man who embodies everything the anti-war movement stands for.
Then you must join me in condemning them now for siding with fascists and dictators or forfeit your own intellectual coherence.
Sure I do. But even I admit that there is a limit to what the US military can do. One at a time. One at a time.
As an aside - each case must be judged independently. It is obvious that democracy msut be acheived in each case, but the means for doing so may be different in North Korea than Iraq, for example. It may be that military assault is not the best way to encourage democracy, unlike Iraq.
This is dumb even for you. Why not Galloway? He's one person, not representative at all.
I roundly condemn Galloway and have been vocal about it on this forum. Now how about you go away and construct some decent arguments rather than your usual generalised bullshit?
Chile?
Not too long ago you were still defending the act of bringing down a democratically elected government and putting a brutal, mass raping and murdering fascist dictator in its place.
For the record, would you now make an statement on America and Britain's new best ally and friend President Karimov of Uzbekistan? Got any comments on Bush shaking hands with the blood-drenched brute and making him the West's new best buddy?
What do you think of the Death Squads of Central and South America paid for and finananced by the US, as well as America's numerous other attempts to unseat democratically elected governments in the region and replace them by military right wing juntas, while you are at it?
As I said, you only become a champion of freedom and against dictatorships, terrorism and murdereres when the US says so. Those dictators, murderers and butchers who are or have been useful puppets of the Right Wing movement are however alright in your eyes are they not?
At the end of the day they're doing the world a favour by fighting that Greatest of Demons, Evil Commies. Right?
This is Mat's idea of moral consistency.
But that reality kind of destroys your argument that those who opposed the war are all loonie lefties, right?