What is liberal intervention anyway,cansome please explain.

What is liberal intervention anyway,cansome please explain.

huh?

how is calling for Muslims to alter their mindsets so that they no longer allow terrorism a free pass nor the hijacking of terrorists of Muslim causes thus ushering in a sea change in Muslim attitudes towards terrorism (which is now happening at last because of Mumabi) and liberal-guilt-free celebration of the mantra “The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist” the same as not allowing leaders to get away with crimes against humanity?

Or what about Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1979? That was to kick out the Khmer Rougue. O.K. – the Vietnamese probably didn’t invade out of the goodness of their hearts, but if I was a Cambodian civilian at that time I wouldn’t have complained.

Oh yes, and I wonder how much longer (and bloodier) the Bangladesh independence war might have been if India hadn’t come steaming in?

But maybe I’m digressing too much… If I am, sorry.

“would that include the SWP, George Galloway et al? I’m sure it would, you seem principled enough”

Look, I could have walked a degree in Galloway bashing from the University of Humourless Wankerishness. But (enough about me, how about you?) none of that really matters. I mean, looking over the Iraq War and concentrating on unsavoury George is like seeing a drowning man and thinking “Y’know, I would help him, but the fucker trying to fish him out once spilt my mate’s drink.”

Outside of the internal politics of the anti-war movemement, it only really serves as a) a distraction from important stuff that one doesn’t want to talk about, and/or b) cheap kicks (if flame wars are your thing).

“I still fail to understand your anger at liberal interventionism.”

It currently imagines that leaders with multifarious corporate interests and chequered pasts in anti-democratic movements are really just sensitive souls that want to give a helping hand to the oppressed.

“LOL of course it has been liberated from Saddam’s regime.”

Well, Iraqis were made free from Saddam but they weren’t made free, so they weren’t actually liberated.

“What would happen to this man had assaulted a guest of Saddam if the Baathist genocidal terror regime were in place?”

Oooh, the possibility for minorly relevant equations is endless. In pre-2003 Iraq, women didn’t really have to fear murderous hitmen: ergo, why is everybody ragging on Saddam? I think not.

Love to all and sundry (especially sundry),

Ben

Not unless you support the need for Bush and Blair to face an International Criminal Courts tribunal and be tried for Crimes against Humanity.

Why would anyone give a shit about that? I mean aren’t we just supposed to sit back and let the powerful do as they please, you know the only good terrorist is a dead one etc. Only way to make sure that’s true is to allow powerful country’s to kill and invade [in violation of any law] as they please, right?

I haven’t heard that term equated to the Iraqi invasion in some time.

would that include the SWP, George Galloway et al? I’m sure it would, you seem principled enough

I can’t help but say you are in agreement with the Daily Mail, the National Front, and the BNP by opposing liberal interventionism. Plus of course large parts of the ‘left’ and “mainstrean” Muslim opinion.

BUt of course, teh real scumbags are those who supported the removal of Baathist regime! Worst of course being Iraqis.

I still fail to understand your anger at liberal interventionism.

That sums it up for me. Also, behaving like that feeds into what some think brown people behave like: out of control/reacting emotionally, uncivilised, not knowing how to handle a situation etc

And what must be remembered is that the President of the USA, though as the leader holds ultimate responsibility, did not initiate such a war independently – many others are culpable and not being the top dog means they are not bearing the backlash.

This is almost another blog topic in that under what crimes would/could Bush be tried for & who else should also be tried with him.

Governments pass laws that citizens have to follow, as parents do to children. I think it’s fair. All I meant was that you might sympathise with how someone feels but nonetheless condemn the way they express it. I hope that’s less offensive to you.

‘Anyone disagree with that?’

I don’t disagree at all. As Bush once said ‘bring it on’.

Now the question is will Bush play coward to the end and make sure no charges are brought?

Provocation is a defence, as Katy I am sure will agree. The trial would hinge on how provoked al Zaidi was.

The only way out for Bush-Maliki would be for al Zaidi to be ‘persuaded’ to plead guilty. Otherwise Bush should expect to be paying another visit to the Green Zone.