Archive | history RSS feed for this section

A British Constitution?

3 Mar

Sunny has posted an extract of Chris Huhne’s speech at the CoML. One paragraph caught my eye (in what is an excellent speech) ::

And let me make one final point, which is that if we want to achieve that consensus that I very much want to see, we have certainly to build a popular campaign a that is absolutely crucial but the end of that copopular campaign to my mind should be an entrenchment of our civil liberties in a way that cannot be challenged in the fewer to you in the way that it has been challenged in the last ten years in particular. I am thinking here of a written constitution. … That is the sort of entrenchment of civil liberties which we’ll never have in this country unless we too have a written constitution to guarantee that judges can oversee laws and can make sure that they do not contravene fundamental civil liberties.

I’d also like to see a British constitution.

But the American constitution was reached after a bloody war of independence. It was forged in the fires of suffering and struggle. It was drafted by the lionised fathers of a nascent republic. It is protected by its own pillar of government – The Supreme Court of the United States.

Yes the U.S. constitution has been amended at times, but recent history tells us that a British constitution would be treated by our self-important political classes as a nebulous hindrance that can be ignored, or worse, reshaped for every new “political reality” that will be constructed to terrify us into obedience.

We don’t need a document. We need a new way of running this country. For once, let’s be as radical as our forefathers and shake this shit up.



9 Nov

dizzy’s empty diatribe against the “anti-war left”

27 Mar

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.

recommended reading: the vietnam factor

31 Jan

Snowflake has written an excellent analysis of why she thinks a Vietnam veteran can never become president.

running mates

6 Jan

The following post was written for Liberal Conspiracy.

Running Mates are often seen as crucial to a nominee’s chances of winning a general election. George W. Bush, as we know, chose the vastly experienced Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, an appointment which has seen the hawkish, Nebraska-born former congressman from Wyoming, become arguably America’s most influential Vice President in history. Ironically, it was Cheney’s job to brief Bush on possible Veeps, only for Bush to surprise everyone by rejecting Cheney’s recommendations, and asking him to fill the ticket himself. How much influence strategist Karl Rove had on the decision is unclear.

Vice Presidential hopefuls have run on the same ticket as wannabe Presidents since 1804 (prior to this date, the losing candidate would assume the VP’s role). In early times the “Ticket Balance” was used to assuage the North/South divide. This changed after the Civil War, but nevertheless, nominees continue to use their choice of Running Mate to massage worries within the electorate.

Posters on this blog have already swooned over the possibility of an Obama-Edwards ticket, but if Obama has a weakness, it’s his perceived inexperience. Edwards offers little in this respect, beyond his own VP run alongside John Kerry in ’04 (it should also be noted that Edwards’ head-to-head debate with Cheney was called in favour of the latter). I expect Obama to pick an older statesman, someone like Bill Richardson who has vast experience, both as an executive and in Washington (he would also be very handy in attracting the Spanish vote). Richardson, like Joe Biden, is also a foreign policy heavyweight, something the Democratic trio of stars will have to consider whichever gets the nomination.

Other possibilities not to be ignored are Gen. Wesley Clark, former Virginian governor Mark Warner, and the increasingly independent Mike Bloomberg (the incumbent NYC Mayor would come at an incredibly high price though).

Obama is a long way away from securing the nomination, so it’s worth considering who the other Democratic frontrunners would chose…

for those who died

10 Nov

Tomorrow is Rememberence Sunday, so whatever your opinion on the validity of war, it’s time to stop and think about the sacrifices so many of our predecessors made (and the sacrifices military families continue to make).

Caroline Smailes is a very talented writer. She has posted a very sweet and personal post about her grandfather. A soldier. Click Here.


14 Oct

Quick. I haven’t got long.

Have you read Simon Jenkins’ Op-Ed in today’s Sunday Times?

Jenkins’ – normally – really bugs me, but this is a very well thought-out piece and is very close to my thoughts on the relationship between the West and Islam.

And in a Murdoch paper too!