Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/johnband/sharpener.johnband.org/index.php:1) in /home/johnband/sharpener.johnband.org/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: The real madness of the Euston Manifesto http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/ Trying to make a point Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:21:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: Neil Harding http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-15213 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:10:24 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-15213 Typically I have a third way position. I was against the initial invasion of Iraq but supported Blair’s decision to support Bush and I am against the EM because it assumes that you can’t reject Galloway etc unless you accept Bush’s policies, which is rubbish.

I’ll explain;

The invasion has worsened terrorism and there were obviously no WMD. Blair’s decision didn’t make a difference one way or the other to whether the invasion went ahead so I have no problem supporting his pragmatic position of influencing the US. British involvement may actually have reduced deaths in Iraq because British troops were (initially at least) more respected by the Iraqis and British troops were probably less trigger happy than US troops. Also (the hope of mine was that) Blair would win influence over Bush and stop his worst excesses (bombing Al Jazeera?? etc?) and maybe advance the Israeli-Palestine peace process, Climate Change, debt relief for Africa. This looks wishful thinking on my part but history will judge Blair on this.

I also accept that although I opposed the invasion, the people of Iraq (hopefully) will eventually be better off in the long term without Saddam. The civil war at the moment makes it difficult to make that claim as yet.

The problem is the benefits of removing Saddam quickly don’t seem enough considering the boost it has given to world terrorism.

]]> By: Donald/TheJarndyceBlog http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14795 Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:01:14 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14795 Except I already suggested one. The US must agree to bind itself to existing international legal norms, scant though they are. At a very minimum.

Except, it’s moving in the other direction entirely, just at the moment the Eustonards are throwing their “leftist” support behind it.

]]> By: Chris B http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14792 Wed, 07 Jun 2006 14:47:23 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14792 so because they want to solve the problems now, rather than wait for China (for a start) to agree to make themselves irrelevant in the UN, you can’t sign?

Your realism started well, you seemed to be seeing the world as it is rather than as you’d like, and then it deserted you totally at the end of the post. So you get to feel morally pure, but without posing any kind of a realistic alternative. thanks for your input.

]]> By: Donald/TheJarndyceBlog http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14586 Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:11:22 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14586 your reasons for supporting the war are not their reasons for starting it

Isn’t that the darndest thing about unintended consequences?

you ignored the realities of the Iraq wars for the fantasy version

…which is about as close to 100% inaccurate as you could be, as even a cursory reading would tell you. I’ll happily take crit. of what I actually wrote but boilerplate anti-“Decent” stuff is completely irrelevant.

]]> By: Martin Wisse http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14580 Sun, 04 Jun 2006 10:30:08 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14580 Your reasons for supporting the war are all nicey liberal, but you sort of gloss over the fact that your reasons for supporting the war are not their reasons for starting it. In other words, you ignored the realities of the Iraq wars for the fantasy version.

Seems to me you’ve got little call to accuse others of being crazy.

]]> By: roger http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14305 Wed, 31 May 2006 03:54:38 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14305 It is actually pretty easy to be liberal and against the Euston manifesto. The lies that you mention in the runup to the war, and its continuation now, are symptoms of a legitimacy crisis in the democracies that the Manifesto not only does not address, but advocates exaccerbating. The crisis is manifested in the divide between what the elites want – the European Union of neoliberalism, the invasion of any country George Bush picks out on a map — and what the populations want. The crisis stems from allowing the executive branch (in the U.S. and Britain) way too much foreign policy power, the kind of power that even monarchs did not have back in the 18th century. And, as the war economy has institutionalized in the superpowers — I’m lookin’ at you, Uncle Sam, and your endless cold war ways! – there seems to be no limit on the production of weapons, the creation of independent armies jumping to the unconstrained dictate of a president or a prime minister, and the creation of a perennially aggressive culture. You want to intervene in Africa? Try seizing the patents on various drugs needed by poor Africans and allowing their free manufacture. Try contributing, I don’t know, ten percent of the GDP of the Western countries to make the continent happy.

Well, as we know, that isn’t going to happen. We aren’t even going to cut down on the kind of emission of greenhouse gases that are probably at fault for the droughts in Kenya, and the changing monsoon pattern in India. But we will invade those or other countries, if we are feeling moral about it and shit. Although no ‘we’ will do it — a volunteer army tempted to enlist by substandard economic opportunities supplemented by a host of government encouraged private militias, ie mercenaries, will do it.

I think your happy outcome has to be balanced against an unhappy one for you to even make the argument. The unhappy argument is that as Basra goes, so goes Iraq — a state with the humanity and democratic leanings of the Taliban. And unhappy outcomes seem to be springing into action all over — as per the increasing unrest in Afghanistan. I accept being attacked as a justification for war, which is why I supported the Americans going into Afghanistan — with the goal of eliminating Osama Bin Laden. That Bin Laden has not only not been eliminated, but has been put on tap in a country that the US is bankrolling strikes me as another typical effect of institutionalized war on the democratic structures of the U.S. — the overwhelming temptation for the executive is to always keep an excuse at hand to use troops, and what better one than the terrorists he has no intention of rooting out?

If the Euston crowd had addressed the legitimation crisis that is the salient feature of the Iraq war, they might have been onto something. They pretended, though, that it never happened — and this is why they can never, ever be trusted. They don’t care – as long as the end is good, screw it if you have to lie, cheat and support crooks like Chalabi to get there. Except that kind of enterprise will always fall apart — these intellectuals might support democracy, but they don’t have a clue how it works.

]]> By: Devil's Kitchen http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14248 Tue, 30 May 2006 19:12:58 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14248 By the time that this banner was being displayed, the UN had ruled out intervention: therefore, the only intervention would have had to be unilateral.

Good lord, Dunc! Are you actually suggesting that we still want to be in Iraq? Or that we intended to be there for any length of time? Why? (And please don’t say oil because you’ll just look silly. If you want to know why, consider the manner in which oil is bought and sold). Let us remember, also, that “intervene” may not mean invade and occupy, but what the UN did in the Balkans is no different to what the US/UK are doing in Iraq.

And Paul, where exactly is the difference between “intervening” to stop mass-murder by the government in Darfur and “intervening” to stop mass-murder by the government in Iraq? Are you saying that the lives of those in Darfur are worth more than those in Iraq?And how do you know that we would not end up bogged down in the same mess in Darfur as in Iraq? After all, the problems in Darfur are, essentially, sectarian.

And given how bogged down we are in Iraq, how — logistically — are we supposed to help Darfur? Should we leave that to the African League (or whatever the hell they call themselves)? Must we police the world?

DK

]]> By: Dunc http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14228 Tue, 30 May 2006 12:24:34 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14228 Also it’s worth noting that “intervene” does not necessarily mean “invade and occupy”. There is a whole spectrum of foreign policy options that lie between “ignore” and “bomb into oblivion from 20,000 feet”. And even if you do go down the military intervention route, there is the option of gaining UN support and authorization, which is what makes the difference between “occupation” and “illegal occupation”. So it’s perfectly possible to support intervention, even military action, in Darfur, whilst nonetheless opposing illegal occupation in Iraq.

]]> By: Paul http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14224 Tue, 30 May 2006 11:20:47 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14224 Planeshift is absolutely right. Intervention is fully justifiable given a humantiarian crisis. The problem with Iraq, as Planeshift notes, was the ill-motive of the US-UK alliance – economically strategic, not of humanitarian concern. And yes, given Iraq was invaded and not Darfur, clearly demonstrates the selfish, strategic motives. We OUGHT to have invaded the Darfur region with International compliance to protect humn rights. We obviously ought not to have invaded Iraq without International compliance. Devil’s Kitchen – where is the confusion in that?!?!?!

]]> By: Planeshift http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/05/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14210 Tue, 30 May 2006 08:44:44 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/05/26/the-real-madness-of-the-euston-manifesto/#comment-14210 Why does it demonstrate confusion?

It is possible to be against the war in Iraq, but in favour of other actions such as the actions in Sierra Leone. In fact the failure to intervene in Darfur actually proves the point of those who said Iraq was nothing to do with humanitarian motives.

]]>