The Skakagrall

Simon,

Whilst I concure with a great deal of what you write in this post there are (surprise, surprise) some which jar on me.

The world is not, unfortunately, a kind and gentle place - nor was it ever. In the list of atrocities you mention you seem to have overlooked some of the greatest 'crimes against humanity' in pretty recent times - Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, genocide in Rwanda, genocide (now) in Darfur, and indeed in Iraq under its former management. None of these justify in any way, of course, what the US (and the UK by proxy) may be doing to extract information from suspected terrorists, nor the detentions at Guantanamo without charge or trial, but the situation is a good deal more complex than simply blaming 'the West' for all the world's ills. Much as I like Ken Clarke, his speech questionning the wisdom of our participation in efforts to rid Iraq of the Ba'athists is not so very different from the appeasers in the late 1930s. People say we should have continued to negotiate with Saddam Hussein, or that his regime might have collapsed anyway without outside military intervention - I doubt it very much. One only has to look at Zimbabwe today, under Mugabe, to see that chronic mismangement of a country where the population is cowed into submission make it almost impossible for completely internal opposition to work. Sometimes action is necessary, even if some pretty horrible things happen in the process.

Bill,

Thank you for you comments.

If you are a supporter of the war in Iraq then I fear we have no common ground there.

Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster all the way back to the time the Americans supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. I see no connection whatsoever between Europe in the 1930s and Iraq in 2003-5. Saddam was removed with maximum, not minimum, ongoing bloodshed. Instead of levering him out, which would have been possible if the UN inspectors had had sufficient time to demonstrate that he lacked weapons, the country was bludgeoned. Instead of a well-planned occupation and a quick withdrawal, we have seen war crimes and other horrors that have resonated around the Middle East, and a still indefinite time span to the occupation.

The west should have been focused on pursuing al-Qaeda, avoiding the risks of getting direct entangled in a major Arab state.

In my view the international community have to set up institutions/mechanisms to react effectively to abuses of human rights and put pressurize on the (many) regimes that are guilty of them to stop. This means putting limits to national sovereignty. (There are ways in which this can be done.) Occasionally using using brute force against an odd abusive regime that happens to have oil, is not an effective substitute for an overall policy. Invading Country A, but leaving offending countries B, C, D and E untouched, is not good enough. [Unfortunately, as you will know, the USA (together with Israel, China, Libya and ironically Iraq) refused to recognize the International Criminal Court at the Hague.]

You write: "In the list of atrocities you mention you seem to have overlooked some of the greatest 'crimes against humanity' in pretty recent times - Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, genocide in Rwanda, genocide (now) in Darfur, and indeed in Iraq under its former management."

I was not cataloguing crimes against humanity, I only mentioned events which I thought were inter-connected. (Surely Cambodia - a country which I happen to follow to some extent - is not relevant to the London bombing?)

Hi Simon

Thanks for your counter-comments. If you were unaware of my (ongoing) support for our participation in Iraq then you cannot have been reading my blog very closely ;) I'm well aware of your attitude to this subject, having read your blog assiduously since I discovered it some months ago.

As for your questionning my mention of Cambodia (a country whose recent history I have also followed quite closely - and visited a few times), of course it has no direct relevance to recent events in London (or indeed Iraq), but then nor did your mention of Auschwitz - except that, fortuitously, we and the US were also involved in liberating Germany to bring that particular barbarity to and end. My purpose in mentioning Cambodia, and Rwanda, and Darfur, was to flag in a my usual subtle-(as a brick?)-style the seeming (to me) somewhat superficial list of the atrocities you chose to list - I am an 'equal-opportunities' lister of atrocities and recognise that atrocities can be (and are) committed by all sorts and conditions of people. Are you suggesting that there was something morally-suspect in US participating in military operations to end the kind of thing that led to Auschwitze, for example? Is it just a symptom of a profound anti-Americanism? Just asking ...

Thank you first of all for your support of my blog - which seems to be generally well-connected but not particularly widely read!

On Iraq we are obviously poles apart, though if you can maintain your enthusiasm for the invasion after two years of never-ending bad news, that certainly says something for your perseverance.

I was not listing atrocities per se. I have still not made myself clear on this point.

I used the word 'trail'. I was listing events which influenced each other. Whether or not you agree with my progression, the point I was making is that inhumanity leads to inhumanity. You may disagree with my tracing events all the way back to the German concentration camps, but I did that to illustrate my point.

"Are you suggesting that there was something morally-suspect in US participating in military operations to end the kind of thing that led to Auschwitz, for example?"

No, of course not.

"Is it just a symptom of a profound anti-Americanism?"

I am not anti-American. I have had more American friends in my life than British ones.

I am, of course, anti-Bush - the worst American president of my lifetime.

Bush is just fine. The muslims started plotting the 9/11 attack during the Clinton administration, it must be remembered. Also it is interesting that they were attacking US embassies and US itself while US was actually helping a lot the muslims with the dirty war in Kosovo and asking Hollywood to make many movies about the "good afghans warriors" against the evil russians and so forth (it should also be remembered that before 9/11 there has already been a failed attempt to blow up the two towers and this again during Clinton years).

Finally, I don't really think british born muslims which are ready to blow up themselves, are really *that interested* in the Iraqi war. Is the usual "casus belli" excuse. If there was no Iraq they will threaten us because we forbid things like the burqa or cutting clitoris to women or beating them up and so forth (like it happens in any muslim country). France docet. What islam is fighting against is ultimately, the western world and its values.

I am also happy Europe is failing as proven recently. We have to start to think about an ethnical and ethical "Renaissance" for Europe otherwise we will become the "Eurabia" the great intellectual Oriana Fallaci is talking about, more on Fallaci at:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0847827534/qid=1121615928/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-7092877-8946803