PDA

View Full Version : Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War



-:Undertaker:-
27-08-2013, 07:57 PM
Well worth a read, and if convinced - as I am - worth writing to your MP within the next 48 hours to stop this insane rush to war against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom nor the interests of the United Kingdom.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/please-do-what-you-can-now-to-halt-this-rush-to-war.html

Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War


I am moved to write what follows by a terrible feeling of powerlessness as the government of my country rushes towards a war for which it knows it has no mandate.

It appears that a decision has already been taken in Washington DC to launch some sort of attack on Syria. It also seems that the British government wishes to join in that attack. The House of Commons has been recalled but the behaviour of the Opposition Leader (and of the leader of the Liberal Democrats) suggests that they are not prepared to question this involvement with any vigour. If British people wish to oppose this bizarre and perilous adventure, it is therefore up to them to contact their MPs directly.

This posting is designed to help them to do so, calmly, reasonably, politely and logically while there is yet time. A decisive vote against British involvement is still quite possible, and would be an important demonstration of national maturity and responsibility, as well as a permanent check on the incurable enthusiasm of some politicians for war and its alleged glamour and glory.

Here are some arguments which you might wish to use, if and when (as I urge you to ) you contact your MP in the next two days.

It is being suggested (as it always is) that the planned attack will be precise, surgical, proportionate etc etc etc.

The truth is that nobody ever really knows the final consequence of any act of violence. Violence generally results in retaliation, which in this case might take many unpredictable forms.

Wars often begin with minor incidents, minor anyway to start with, which then bleed without ceasing until they have spread a vast red stain on much of the surface of the Earth. They are often begun on the basis of mistaken information, or indeed of lies. They are often begun by credulity, by emotionalism and by the failure of responsible persons to see through propaganda.

That is why thoughtful people hesitate greatly before even contemplating such acts, generally preferring to do them only in self-defence. When the violence involves a military attack on a sovereign country with which we are not at war, the matter is still more risky.

Precision warfare is a myth. On several occasions, supposedly super-accurate airstrikes on Libya resulted in the undisputed deaths of several entirely innocent people, including small children. Our attacks on Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis killed such dangerous persons as a make-up lady at Serbian national TV headquarters. If our concern is for the innocent, the launch of bombs and missiles is an odd way of showing it.

The moral clothing in which this attack is dressed is a mass of rags and tatters. The very same people demanding punishment for the Syrian state (including the discredited Anthony Blair) are those who defend or overlook the terrible mass killings by the Egyptian government. That government, which came to power in a blatant military coup, has - and I put this at its mildest – no more legitimacy than the government in Damascus. What is more, there is no dispute at all about who is responsible for the recent mass shootings of demonstrators in Egypt. Yet neitehr Washington nor London (who claim to be abe to descry Syria's guilt by some sort of magic process) will even concede that a putsch has taken place in Cairo.

If we are outraged by governments that kill their own people, our outrage cannot be selective and aimed at only one government which does this. If it is selective, then it is false and has another purpose. What is that purpose? We are not told.

At the time of writing, the United Nations teams have barely begun their investigation into the episode. The Syrian government deny their involvement. There is no proof that they are lying. It is far from impossible to believe that the rebels have resorted to such weapons. In fact, it makes far more sense for them to have done so than for the Syrian government. That government has the upper hand in its civil war at present. It knows perfectly well that proof of its complicity in the use of poison gas will open it to attack. It also knows that such proof will remove the protection it has had up till now from the UN Security Council and the Russian-Chinese veto.

The rush to take action before those teams have reported is frighteningly reminiscent of the rush to attack Iraq, and the withdrawal of Hans Blix’s inspection teams from that country, which were of course on the point of discovering that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Governments simply cannot be trusted to act wisely or responsibly in such matters. They have repeatedly shown this in recent years. That is why we have a Parliament and a free press, to scrutinize and question such things. What is the rush? Why are we having the sentence first, and the evidence and the verdict afterwards? Mr Cameron should be told he cannot have his war until he has proof that it is justified, and until he can show that the actions that he plans are in the interests of this country.

Please do what you can, while you can. There are many honourable reasons for opposing this attack. Whether you are of the Left or Right, liberal or conservative, Christian, of another faith or without faith, patriot or internationalist, all can unite on the simple issues of preferring truth to falsehood, calm justice to wild, flailing vengeance , and careful deliberation to rush to judgement.

Please, do what you can to stop this.

As an add on, where are the American left now that it's warmongering Obama and not warmongering Bush in the hotseat? nowhere to be seen - although i'm happy to see George Galloway and others on the British let opposing this disgrace that the media and political class are desperate to drag us into.

Thoughts?

Ardemax
27-08-2013, 09:27 PM
It appears most of Labour oppose any involvement. Good.

dbgtz
27-08-2013, 09:28 PM
It appears most of Labour oppose any involvement. Good.

Labour oppose everything when in opposition but if they were in power they would do exactly the same.

AgnesIO
27-08-2013, 09:45 PM
Labour oppose everything when in opposition but if they were in power they would do exactly the same.

Spot on.

--

The only thing I would say is that the use of chemical weapons would warrant international action and SOMEONE has to enforce that. I wouldn't totally oppose it, but only if ground troops were not used ( an act that I refuse to accept would be of any benefit whatsoever.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Ardemax
27-08-2013, 09:54 PM
Labour oppose everything when in opposition but if they were in power they would do exactly the same.

To be fair Labour has agreed a lot of the time with Tory policies over the past year or so. So for them to be opposed to it surely sends out a strong signal.

-:Undertaker:-
27-08-2013, 10:02 PM
Spot on.

--

The only thing I would say is that the use of chemical weapons would warrant international action and SOMEONE has to enforce that. I wouldn't totally oppose it, but only if ground troops were not used ( an act that I refuse to accept would be of any benefit whatsoever.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Why do chemical weapons warrant 'international' (aka US, UK and France) military action? Who says it does and why should we assume it does?


It appears most of Labour oppose any involvement. Good.

I haven't seen any evidence of that - indeed I read that Miliband is going to back military action. I can safely bet that Labour will vote with the Government to force military action on the matter when the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Indeed, the only political party leader who I have seen opposing this war has been Nigel Farage (on RT) and I know George Galloway (RESPECT MP) has been vocal on Twitter. Other than that, i've not seen much else due to the media blackout of any dissenting opinions on Sky, the BBC and most of the papers.

It's good to see Diane Abbott MP threatening to resign from the Labour frontbench.. whether she will or not though is another thing.

Ardemax
27-08-2013, 10:52 PM
I haven't seen any evidence of that - indeed I read that Miliband is going to back military action. I can safely bet that Labour will vote with the Government to force military action on the matter when the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Indeed, the only political party leader who I have seen opposing this war has been Nigel Farage (on RT) and I know George Galloway (RESPECT MP) has been vocal on Twitter. Other than that, i've not seen much else due to the media blackout of any dissenting opinions on Sky, the BBC and most of the papers.

It's good to see Diane Abbott MP threatening to resign from the Labour frontbench.. whether she will or not though is another thing.

A leader does not always speak for the party, as I'm sure will be made clear over the next few days.

AgnesIO
27-08-2013, 11:37 PM
Why do chemical weapons warrant 'international' (aka US, UK and France) military action? Who says it does and why should we assume it does?



I haven't seen any evidence of that - indeed I read that Miliband is going to back military action. I can safely bet that Labour will vote with the Government to force military action on the matter when the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Indeed, the only political party leader who I have seen opposing this war has been Nigel Farage (on RT) and I know George Galloway (RESPECT MP) has been vocal on Twitter. Other than that, i've not seen much else due to the media blackout of any dissenting opinions on Sky, the BBC and most of the papers.

It's good to see Diane Abbott MP threatening to resign from the Labour frontbench.. whether she will or not though is another thing.

Viewpoint basically explained here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428

-:Undertaker:-
27-08-2013, 11:44 PM
Viewpoint basically explained here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428

Well if you want to go by what International Law (which isn't what I asked you to justify) then you'd find that Syria isn't a signatory to the Convention against Chemical Weapons so therefore is perfectly entitled to use them as a sovereign state.

But as I alluded to - i'm not asking for clarification on international law (which is meaningless anyway) - i'm asking you why you made the (supposed) moral claim that someone has to act when a state uses chemical weapons. And i'm asking, why? who says so and under what authority?

I don't understand the false outrage surrounding chemical weapons as i've never understood exactly why suffocating to death with a toxic gas is seemingly a thousand times worse than being blown to bits by exploding shrapnel.

AgnesIO
27-08-2013, 11:58 PM
Well if you want to go by what International Law (which isn't what I asked you to justify) then you'd find that Syria isn't a signatory to the Convention against Chemical Weapons so therefore is perfectly entitled to use them as a sovereign state.

But as I alluded to - i'm not asking for clarification on international law (which is meaningless anyway) - i'm asking you why you made the (supposed) moral claim that someone has to act when a state uses chemical weapons. And i'm asking, why? who says so and under what authority?

I don't understand the false outrage surrounding chemical weapons as i've never understood exactly why suffocating to death with a toxic gas is seemingly a thousand times worse than being blown to bits by exploding shrapnel.

I am aware that Syria is not a signatory to this, I don't need you to tell me! The key part of my post was "I would say", meaning in my view. It is of my view that when a state is committing genocide (and the like), someone should step in - I don't think atrocities such as Rwanda should be able to happen and I cannot see how any decent human being can possibly just stand there and watch as it does happen. I know your view is very much "as long as the UK is happy, nobody else matters", but my view of the role of the state on the international stage is evidently very different to yours.

-:Undertaker:-
28-08-2013, 12:05 AM
I am aware that Syria is not a signatory to this, I don't need you to tell me! The key part of my post was "I would say", meaning in my view. It is of my view that when a state is committing genocide (and the like), someone should step in - I don't think atrocities such as Rwanda should be able to happen and I cannot see how any decent human being can possibly just stand there and watch as it does happen. I know your view is very much "as long as the UK is happy, nobody else matters", but my view of the role of the state on the international stage is evidently very different to yours.

So does this form of moral grandstanding or concern involve you fighting with a gun in a third world desert or you sitting in an IKEA armchair a thousand miles away? You don't have to answer as I know which one as it's so predictable with people who take that bleeding heart and utopian view.

But what I would like to know is this - the million or so estimated political prisoners in China that are currently being held, do they warrant the same compassion from you or is China different because it generates a lot of money and won't take lectures on morality? what about Israel back in 2009 when it used white phosperhus? or should the likes of China & Israel be subjected to your ideals too? or are only defenceless tinpot countries like Rwanda and Syria worthy of your concern and why?

AgnesIO
28-08-2013, 12:11 AM
So does this form of moral grandstanding or concern involve you fighting with a gun in a third world desert or you sitting in an IKEA armchair a thousand miles away? You don't have to answer as I know which one as it's so predictable with people who take that bleeding heart and utopian view.

I shall quote myself;


but only if ground troops were not used ( an act that I refuse to accept would be of any benefit whatsoever.

Clearly I am against sending ground troops in.

Also, PLEASE, don't bring up that argument. I have and do go to other countries and assist where I can, providing it is sustainable. I said during the whole "Joseph Kony" rubbish that if people really care about the poor children, they should go to Uganda and help protect them.

I don't intend to go anywhere with a gun in a third world desert, although I somewhat doubt Winston Churchill grabbed a gun and went and fought the Germans in WW2. We have a perfectly good armed forces who have CHOSEN to get a job where they may fight, I however, have not. I think more people should train in computer science, but I am not doing so myself - it doesn't mean that it is unfair for me to have that opinion.

(If I don't reply again, I am not ignoring - just may have gone to bed :))

-:Undertaker:-
28-08-2013, 12:19 AM
I don't intend to go anywhere with a gun in a third world desert, although I somewhat doubt Winston Churchill grabbed a gun and went and fought the Germans in WW2.

Well that's because Churchill was 60-something in WWII. Churchill however did serve in the military in the Boer War and WWI if i'm not mistaken - so even if he had conducted a war which I disagreed with, you know, at least I could say that he'd served when it was his time to serve: unlike the chickenhawks of Obama, Bush, Cameron and Blair. That's exactly why although I think John McCain is absolutely bonkers in his foreign policy views, at least he served his country in a pointless war which gives me a lot more respect for him for at least sticking to his guns.


We have a perfectly good armed forces who have CHOSEN to get a job where they may fight, I however, have not.

But why not? ... you clearly think in some cases that British lives are worth sacrificing so that tinpot countries don't tear themselves apart, so I really don't see why you don't put your money where your mouth is and go and serve (even just for a year or two).

As for the armed forces choosing to go and fight, er what? from my recollection the campaign in 2012 in the US that recieved by a mile the most funding from serving military men was the anti-war Ron Paul campaign. When people sign up to join the military they do it in the expectation that their lives will only be put in harms way if it is deemed absolutely nessecery - they do not expect to be sent into battle against a country that has never harmed or threatened to harm this country.


I think more people should train in computer science, but I am not doing so myself - it doesn't mean that it is unfair for me to have that opinion.

I hardly think training for computer science is the same as serving and potentially dying for your country.

oli
28-08-2013, 01:23 AM
"Peace-making" is a phrase that comes to mind instead of the word peace.
We shouldn't have any involvement in the matter.

AgnesIO
28-08-2013, 10:17 AM
Well that's because Churchill was 60-something in WWII. Churchill however did serve in the military in the Boer War and WWI if i'm not mistaken - so even if he had conducted a war which I disagreed with, you know, at least I could say that he'd served when it was his time to serve: unlike the chickenhawks of Obama, Bush, Cameron and Blair. That's exactly why although I think John McCain is absolutely bonkers in his foreign policy views, at least he served his country in a pointless war which gives me a lot more respect for him for at least sticking to his guns.



But why not? ... you clearly think in some cases that British lives are worth sacrificing so that tinpot countries don't tear themselves apart, so I really don't see why you don't put your money where your mouth is and go and serve (even just for a year or two).

As for the armed forces choosing to go and fight, er what? from my recollection the campaign in 2012 in the US that recieved by a mile the most funding from serving military men was the anti-war Ron Paul campaign. When people sign up to join the military they do it in the expectation that their lives will only be put in harms way if it is deemed absolutely nessecery - they do not expect to be sent into battle against a country that has never harmed or threatened to harm this country.



I hardly think training for computer science is the same as serving and potentially dying for your country.

The fact is that politicians are there to do the Politics, the army are there to fight. I wouldn't want some front line private as the Prime Minister, likewise I wouldn't want David Cameron running around with a gun. It is ridiculous to argue that if you think it is fair "go and join", as this surely applies to the officers in the army who simply sit in their offices and tell soldiers where to go - the fact is their job is not to go and sit in a camp in the desert.

If I was someone who wanted to run around with a gun, I would want to help in other countries if I believed I was genuinely helping. Unfortunately, I have always felt I am much better in a suit in the corporate world - somewhere I would not want many "squaddies" anywhere near. Having said that, I don't think national service is a half-bad idea.

Ardemax
29-08-2013, 12:44 PM
Ed Miliband against military action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/28/syria-vote-labour_n_3831468.html

-:Undertaker:-
29-08-2013, 01:06 PM
Ed Miliband against military action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/28/syria-vote-labour_n_3831468.html

For political point scoring reasons, of course.

That said, at least somebody is halting this - so good on them.

Ardemax
29-08-2013, 02:15 PM
For political point scoring reasons, of course.

That said, at least somebody is halting this - so good on them.

The Tories are hating on Labour for doing this, but maybe they should have done the same regarding Iraq.

-:Undertaker:-
29-08-2013, 02:43 PM
May be interested in this audio debate on Syria where Peter Hitchens demolishes the neocon he's against - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/the-view-from-22-peter-hitchens-and-alan-mendoza-debate-british-intervention-in-syria/

Ardemax
30-08-2013, 12:18 PM
May be interested in this audio debate on Syria where Peter Hitchens demolishes the neocon he's against - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/the-view-from-22-peter-hitchens-and-alan-mendoza-debate-british-intervention-in-syria/

I'll have a look at that in a minute, but firstly: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

"285-272, House of Commons vote against "Military Intervention in Syria in principle""

Good news, that. Well done democracy.

Chippiewill
30-08-2013, 07:08 PM
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said Syrian government forces killed 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack near Damascus last week.

Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described the attack as an "inconceivable horror".

Shortly afterwards, President Barack Obama said the Syrian chemical attack threatened US national security interests.

He said the US was considering a "limited narrow act".

Unsatisfied with the current public opinion on Syria Obama has moved to get sympathy and create wild accusations of it somehow threatening national security to justify military action. Of course it's pretty plain to 90% of people that a gas attack in syria in no way affects the safety of those residing in the US and it's pretty ridiculous when you consider DPRK who actually did threaten the US earlier this year and no action was taken by Obama then.

Eoin247
30-08-2013, 11:29 PM
Well it's easy to see why American action is inevitable. Also Israel probably has a lot to do with why the US is interested in this. Assad has allowed Syria to be a conduit for Iran to supply Hezzbollah with weapons, if Assad is no longer in power, that conduit is no longer in operation.
The US also know that once Assad is removed that the Jihadis will move on to Lebanon and try and impose their band of crazy there as well, engaging Hezbollah and the Christian militias with the aim of making Lebanon a Sunni controlled state. The House of saud, the ones paying for all the Jihadi's weapons and food, aren't big fans of the current setup in Lebanon.

All of this benefits Israel in several ways, Hezbollah are weakened and distracted, Hamas lose two of their major backers (Hezbollah and Syria) and Iran is isolated in a sea of Sunni controlled states.

Not to mention that Obama has backed himself into a corner with drawing that line on chemical weapons a while back.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!