| Author | Message | ||
     Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.78 |
Well, I'm looking forward to borrowing it from the library. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
On the one hand, potentially a valuable insight into the mind of a dishonest, sociopathic war criminal. On the other, do I really want to read hundreds of pages worth of that traitorous, authoritarian prick's self-aggrandisement and self-justification? Do I want to wade through the blizzard of bullshit- that Bliar presumably thinks is going to fool somebody- in search of some useful information? Answer, probably: Nahhh. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
 | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.73.79 |
His London signing was scuppered by a battle on the streets of Dublin. First Ulysses, now this. Literature thanks you, Dublin. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.72 |
I was listening to John le Carre on the Today Programme this morning. (Available to listen to on the net.) He talked about terrorism, saying in the days of the IRA (and other terror organisations) that it was always the Western world's belief that for the sake of the freedom of its citizens it was worth taking a hit every now and then. Fine. And we sort of accepted that. Tony Blair's analysis - correct, I think - in the wake of September 11th, was that everything changed. Because the terrorists killed 3000 people that day, but had they been able to kill 300000 people that day then they would have done. That meant a real shift in the way things had to be dealt with. For what it's worth, I suspect he honestly believed that. The details and suspicious intricacies of what came afterwards are more open to question, but I think Blair's overall analysis is more correct than incorrect. So what if he is right? And what if Iran is now building a nuclear bomb? In the most unstable and contentious political region in the world. God knows. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.73.79 |
Perhaps. But none of that has any relevance to invading Iraq on a lie. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
What Proto said. And I utterly reject the idea that 9/11 'changed the rules' so that civil liberties could just be pissed away because of the terrorism threat. Terrorists can kill us. Governments can take away our freedoms. We won those freedoms. Or rather our grandfathers and all those before them. The most sickening thing about my generation is just how fucking chickenshit they are. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.165.31 |
"Because the terrorists killed 3000 people that day, but had they been able to kill 300000 people that day then they would have done." But they couldn't. Blair on the other hand could, so he did. What he 'honestly believed' is a matter for the psychiatrists. Mass murder is a crime against humanity quite regardless of what sanctimonious drivel was held in the mind of the person ordering the deaths. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
le Carre's notion was that you take the hits (even now), Blair's that the hits were becoming potentially too big to take any longer. It's an interesting argument. I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision. On the invasion of Iraq, Blair reckons the issue was not simply posession of WsMD but Sadam's mothballing of the procurement attempts (in regard to nuclear weapons) so that he could bring out his weapons scientists when the UN inspections tests had been met and passed. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
'Blair on the other hand could, so he did.' Do you believe that was his intent, Joel? | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
One of the book's passages seems to have been misinterpeted and could result in Blair being up for the Bad Sex Award next time around, which I do hope he wins. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
'le Carre's notion was that you take the hits (even now), Blair's that the hits were becoming potentially too big to take any longer. It's an interesting argument.' No, Mark, it's a bullshit argument. You either want to live in a free and open society or you don't. Read your history; authoritarian leaders and governments ALWAYS exploit situations like 9/11 to gain power. Hell, just look at the world around us. Robert Mugabe used the same rhetoric to justify clamping down on his opponents in the MDC in Zimbabwe. Hell, if you want a strong leader, how about Vladimir Putin? I mean, people who criticise him too openly have a habit of getting a bullet in the head and he's explicitly threatened those planning to protest against him with violence, but hey. Still, Blair banned protests within a mile of Parliament so the government can be insulated from anything as ugly as the people it's supposed to serve, tried to make 90 days' detention without trial or charge the law (just like they did in apartheid South Africa) but had to settle for 42 days. So the police can only take you away and interrogate you in relays for six weeks. I don't know about you, but interrogate me non-stop for that length of time without access to a lawyer and I'd probably end up confessing to just about anything. Oh yes, and how about control orders? Where you can be placed under house arrest, again without a charge- without even being told what you are alleged to have done? John Reid openly stated that the purpose was to detain people against whom there was no evidence that would stand up in court. If you appeal a control order, there is no 'double jeopardy' principle, so even if the Court of Appeal upholds you, the Home Office can simply re-apply the same order again. And the argument. The same old bullshit as for Iraq- we can't reveal the evidence in cases like this because it's too sensitive, but if you'd only seen what I'd seen you'd agree. Cobblers. As for Iraq- if Saddam Hussein did this, if Saddam Hussein did that. Yes, and if my auntie had wheels she'd be a bloody go-kart. What somebody might do tomorrow is not an excuse to kick their heads in today. Blair's intent is for whichever psychiatrist has to work out whether he's fit to plead at the war crimes trial, because a war criminal is exactly what he is under international law. Crimes against peace; planning and waging an aggressive war. Look it up; better still, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace#Examples_of_crimes_against_peac e And as for the idea of protecting us from terrorism- Blair's own security services were warning him pre-Iraq that an invasion would make a terrorist attack on Britain INEVITABLE. (And wasn't it interesting how much hysterical screeching got directed after 7/7 at anyone who suggested a causal link between Iraq and those bombings?) And yet he still did it, because he clearly valued doing as George W Bush wanted more than the lives and safety of the citizens he was elected to protect and represent. Hm... there's a name, isn't there, for people who further the interests of a foreign power to the detriment of their own country? Somebody remind me... it begins with 't'. I think it's the same word that all the brainwashed cunts who supported the Iraq invasion hurled at the people with the balls and intelligence to oppose it. That's it- traitor. But Blair will never accept that he's at fault. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.78 |
Aye. I agree. To a point. But I don't believe that portrayal of Blair's accurate. I simply don't buy Blair that way. I think he thoight he was doing the best, right thing for the UK. Certainly tue about issues of legality and the Inteligence community's fears. And certainly true about the police misusing new security orders designed to help fight home-grown Islamists. One of le Carre's comments - and let's not forget le Carre's espionage background - was that the USA's army cannot be a standing peacetime army like Switzerland's simply because it's too vast and needs an enemy to be in conflict against. So it's always looking for an enemy, looking for a reason to be on the march. Hence I'd say the UsA's hunger, if that's the right word, to blow the Afghanistan operation and trundle into Iraq, long before it's necessary. Incidentally, I didn't vote for Blair, but did think on the evidence he presented at the time there may be some reasons to go into Iraq. Let's not forget as well that the initial war was over very quickly, that a combination of very dumb decisions in Washington - such as disbanding the Iraqi army - and mischievous Iranian-funded Islamist bombers made the situation worse after that initial invasion point. So I can understand Blair's position when he says that he'd make tthe same decision again on the evidence before him. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
There's a hell of a book to be written about Blair. But he's not the man to write it. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Whatever anyone thinks of Tony Blair he is not an intentional mass murderer... that's just ridiculous rhetoric! | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
@Stevie- he started a war, and he did it deliberately. This included bombing the crap of population centres, resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. The last time I checked, blowing innocent people up counts as mass murder. It's kind of hard to argue there was no intent there. At the very least, he knew fine well there'd be massive numbers of civilian casualties and he did it anyway. As for his intentions, or what he thought he was doing, I really couldn't give a monkey's. If Bin Laden claimed he made 9/11 happen in order to 'liberate' Americans from the tyranny of secularism, or to safeguard the Arab/Muslim world from Western aggression, I suspect no-one would give a toss about his motives- they'd still want him on trial for it, or possibly strung up. Same difference. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Blair is a politician, which makes him, by definition, a devious, manipulative and power hungry human being on a quest for glory. When faced with the single greatest act of aggression against Western society (our society) that the world has ever seen, and the knee-jerk Neo-Con lust for revenge under George W. Bush, he gambled, under intense pressure from across the Atlantic, and made the biggest mistake of his life. His otherwise admirable legacy, not to mention his popularity and judgement, was destroyed as a result - you think he wanted that?! Hindsight has proved Tony Blair disastrously wrong with regard to the invasion of Iraq but to believe for one second that he wanted events to unfold as they did, and deliberately set out to commit mass murder, is ridiculous imho. The guy is not in the same league as Bin Laden... let's get some perspective here, folks! | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
What invading Iraq meant was buying into America's 'Shock and Awe' ethos, which is essentially: if we kill enough people and destroy enough infrastructure, the Arab world will be too afraid of us to give us any kind of trouble in future. I'm afraid a massive civilian death toll was very much part of that agenda. As an intimidation tactic it ran in parallel to Guantanamo Bay, where innocent civilians were held without charge, tortured and arguably murdered simply because they might have been anti-American or been in some vague way linked to people who were. The aim was to tell Muslims worldwide: if you organise against us, we will get you, or your family, or your friends, or your neighbours, or anyone you know, and the people we take will not come back. The first targets of the American bombers over Baghdad were the hospitals, because hospitals would provide Arab TV channels with opportunities to take 'propaganda' photos of dead and maimed civilians. Blair bought into all of that. I'm very tired of being told what Blair 'genuinely believed'. There are remarkably few war criminals or other leaders guilty of crimes against humanity who would say "I did it because I'm evil, ha ha!" All of them convince themselves the end will justify the means. The annexation of Iraq was primarily an attempt to terrify the Arab world through an overwhelming display of merciless force against a nation that had no means of self-defence. There was a secondary goal of placing control of the country's rich oil reserves in American hands. The profits secured did not, of course, compensate the USA for the economic cost of the invasion and occupation. However, converting tax funds into private profit is one of the key priorities of Western governments at this time. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Joel, in all honesty, what would you have done when faced with the single greatest atrocity ever perpetrated against the least flawed semblance of a truly democratic civilization this world has ever managed to manufacture? Blair mistakenly went for the quick fix, I believe, not because he is an evil mass murdering, morally bankrupt maniac but because he was put under insurmountable pressure by Neo-Con lunatics in America, who threatened Britain directly unless he complied, and he put the immediate interests of the country (of all of us) above his own judgement, crossed his fingers, and hoped for the best. That's the double-edged sword of leadership, when it all goes tits up - you're the one left carrying the can! Stop comparing a paltry leader of a tin-pot country, trying to do the best for the people he represented, with an insane mass murderer like Bin Laden - who doesn't give a fuck how many Korans are burnt or innocent Muslims are killed as long as he gets his "divinely inspired" way... A bit of rational perspective, please!! As intelligent and as great a writer and as rarely wrong as you are, Joel, on this score you are way out of line imho. No offence intended. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
Even Hitler and stalin thought they were doing the best for their countries. I'm sorry stevie but I'm with Simon and Joel on this. For every one person killed by islamic extremist, we've killed at least 100 people in Iraq and other countries. And all in the name of installing our own versions of democracy. You'll run your country this way or we'll kill you. there was a very revealing documentary about the second Iraq war. Remember tose pictures of the cheering crowds pulling the statue down? This documentary showed the wide shot of that square. there were about 100 people all corralled into the shot of the propaganda camera to look like a huge crowd. Blair knew what he was doing at the time. And what was this "otherwise admirable legacy"? He reneged on more manifesto promises than virtually any other prime minister. He did more U-turns than I did when I got lost in Leeds town centre for 3 hours. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I grew up with Margaret Thatcher, Weber, and believe me, if ever there was a fabricated war it was the Falklands conflict... Blair was trapped by circumstances into an impossible gamble he never would have even contemplated had the result of the 2000 US Election been allowed to stand. George W. Bush & Donald Rumsfeld, among other US fanatics, are the real villains of the piece as far as the Iraq War goes... Blair was merely a pawn with his hands tied - a modern Chamberlain in reverse. I sincerely believe the wider view of history will prove me right on this score. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.148 |
"Joel, in all honesty, what would you have done when faced with the single greatest atrocity ever perpetrated against the least flawed semblance of a truly democratic civilization this world has ever managed to manufacture." Really, what on Earth are you talking about? It couldn't be 9/11. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Applying logic and a cool head to history... yes, I believe I am! | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
You sincerely believe that America is "the least flawed semblance of a truly democratic civilization this world has ever managed to manufacture." ????? Dubya was voted in by dead voters in the state his little brother ran!!!! That's what swung the final ballot his way. America inder GWB had no claim on being a democracy. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
under, not inder | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Now, boys, don't let's start another war over this - please. You've all got relevant points imo - but I'm more inclined towards the views of Joel, Simon and Weber than Stevie (sorry, Stevie  ). However, I think you're perhaps misinterpreting/misunderstanding what each other is saying in part? True, Blair took us into a war under false pretences. True, his decision was partly responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis. True, we (ie. those of us in the West) have this uncontrollable urge to try to make every other country behave the same as we do - capitalism, democracy, etc - when it might not be the best way to run that particular country with its own ways, tradition and culture. But the prime villain in this piece, as far as I'm concerned, was certainly George W Bush. I think the most Blair can be accused of is crass stupidity in blindly following what that idiot told him to do. If he'd have had any guts he'd have stood up to him. The actions Blair took certainly weren't "in the best interests of this country" as it was obvious from the start that waging war on Islam would *increase* the risk of terrorism in this country (as it did), not lessen it. That's my opinion anyway. I was against the Iraq war from the start. And what the hell are we doing in Afghanistan too? Again, it's the West trying to impose its views and its way of life onto others.  | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Just to sidetrack slightly, with reference to Dick Cheney: under the last administration, shortly before Obama came into office, and in regards to the brief and seemingly confusing war with Russia and Georgia, two former high-level ranking Pentagon officials claimed in a new book that Cheney wanted American warplanes to shoot down Russian warplanes. Fortunately for all concerned, the Pentagon military brass decided there was no way they were going to plunge the world into a third world war for an administration with no credibility and that they were also on their way out. Hard to believe, but apparently it's the sticking pint for the publishers who refuse to remove this section of the book. Now that's a madman. Sorry to deviate. I think it's important though to approach people like Blair, and others of office with a realism that sidesteps the caricature the media and movies impose on them. Terrible, loathsome decisions are made, but the other horror is that it is done in probably the most mundane way imaginable. Atrocities are not necessarily carried out by people painted in one shade of color. As Rob Newman said in a stand-up routine as he tried to convince his audience that Blair was a war criminal, which I personally believe, he said: Do you think Herman Goering was thought of by the German people as a war criminal? Do you think he considered himself one? Personally, I see where Steve is coming from, but I also see where everyone else is coming from. It's important that we don't become trapped within our singular view-points, entrenched by our anger (justified I know), for fear of this becoming as black and white as those arguments we usually avoid like the plague | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Oh and don't get me started on the oil thing. When Robert Mugabwe was committing atrocities in his country - the same as the atrocities which Saddam Hussain committed against the Kurds and the Shi'ites - we (ie. the UK and the States) did nothing whatsoever. Why? Because Zimbabwe isn't an oil-rich country. BTW Stevie, how could the Falklands war be considered fabricated? I'm sure the people who lived there when it was over-run by invading Argentinian soldiers were quite glad we "liberated" them once again. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
Ooops, crossing posts with you Frank. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
What was the British and US reaction to the Rwandan massacre - 800,000 dead in a matter of 3 months. And we did pretty much fuck all... and why would that be? | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Caroline - Members of my family fought in the Falklands, and they would and do concur with what Steve said about the Falklands being fabricated. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
The Falklands was as much about keeping hold of a mineral rich section of the Antarctic we own as a result of owning the Falklands as anything else. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Exactly. The Argentinians feel exactly the same way about it. Confused, angry and mystified by the war. They hate that administration more than we do the Thatcher administration, and that takes some doing. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
My favourite definition of true heroism (from Mark Thomas) was not acts of heroism in war/battle, but going round and knocking on the neighbour's door at three in the morning asking if they had any spare Rizla/skins. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
I realise that was completely off-topic, but my fingers work faster than my brain. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.69 |
President Clinton talked about the machete massacre in his book. He said who'd have thought people could be so barbaric in this age of smart deady death machines. Oh, and I seem to have made a mistake and started some arguments here. Sorry. My original title for this thread and post should have read James Patterson - He does it for the money. He says if you're not writing to be paid, go get a diary. I won't be borrowing his latest book from the library. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
 | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.69.135 |
"Joel, in all honesty, what would you have done when faced with the single greatest atrocity ever perpetrated against the least flawed semblance of a truly democratic civilization this world has ever managed to manufacture." Really, Steve, there isn't a single part of that paragraph that doesn't need an explanation. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Here you go, Proto, and this is intended for rational clear-headed debate, not heated argument: Joel (or anyone who would instinctively call Blair a murdering maniac on a par with Osama Bin Laden), in all honesty (putting yourself in the shoes of those given the democratically elected responsibility of protecting our way of life in the face of unparalleled organised aggression, while balancing the good of the nation against the good of the West), what would you have done when faced with the single greatest atrocity (as 9/11 undoubtedly was, no horror in my lifetime has seared itself into my brain anywhere near as nightmarishly as what unfolded that day, on prime time TV [shudder]) ever perpetrated against the least flawed (though riddled with flaws we are still working to iron out, ) semblance (i.e. far from complete but we're getting there) of a truly democratic civilization (an orgamised gathering of intelligent beings governed by democratic principles, of which, the democratic society we have built in the West - not just the States, though they are its most powerful representative - is the best we have yet achieved imho) this world (i.e. Earth as monopolised by human beings) has ever managed to manufacture (we're currently as good as we've managed to get at governing ourselves fairly, with a long way to go yet). Tony Blair gambled by throwing in his lot with our most powerful ally and hoping for the best. I personally believe he was bullied into it by Neo-Con threats to our own nation had he not supported them - his actions were misguided and smacked of cowardice but we have no idea of the outside pressures he was put under. The Bush administration concocted evidence to make Saddam look guilty as they were baying for blood with all reason thrown out the window. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney & the whole lot of the barbarous crew are the real villains behind what happened in Iraq & Afghanistan - even though two undeniably monstrous regimes were toppled as a result. If I had been in Blair's shoes I would like to think I'd have thrown in my lot with our more cautious European neighbours but, I say again, I have no idea what other influences, pressures and threats were put on him from across the Atlantic... that story has yet to be told. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Steve - just emailed you, mate. Sorry, on a completely unrelated topic. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
Unparalleled organised agression? From where? Sorry but I really do believe that the scale of the terror threat is vastly conflated by the governments of the western world in order toreduce our freedoms, see all the examples Mr Bestwick gave above. You're still calling America the LEAST FLAWED democracy? Really? Most of Europe works on far better democratic principles that the US of A. Look at the way Bush was elected. That wouldn't have stood in many countries in the world. For the self-proclaimed most powerful country (aka we've got more weapons than you have) in the world, it's a deplorable state of affairs. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.148 |
Thanks Steve, That does actually help. If you're saying it's the worst attack against the USA, you're probably correct. I differ with you over describing the USA as the best attempt at a civilized democracy in the world, though. Still, I'm realistic enough, to prefer that the world was dominated by Washington than, say, Peking (which I'll continue to call it until they stop murdering people). | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Not America, Weber... but the alliance of Western democratic societies taken as a whole. What you describe are just some of the more serious flaws that still have to be ironed out of the American constitution. But the very fact that a liberal black man is now in charge where, a few short years ago, a racist lunatic held sway speaks volumes about just how fair a democratic society the USA really is - and it will only continue to get fairer, as long as violent religious maniacs like Bin Laden don't get their way! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Thanks, Frank. Fascinating reading... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.148 |
"But the very fact that a liberal black man is now in charge where, a few short years ago, a racist lunatic held sway speaks volumes about just how fair a democratic society the USA really is" No, it'll only be democratic when a racist lunatic black man can be president. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Hence the flaw in democracy... we are human beings after all, and incapable of perfection. We can merely strive to do our best. | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.153.167.201 |
The flaw in modern western 'democracy' (small d) is,i think, the fact that only those from a wealthy, privileged background seem to be able to reach the highest office. Western democracy is 'hot wired' to be a self serving construct of the elite/corporate classes. We had no say at all in their decision to go to war in Iraq. They used fear and lies to justify it. We had no say at all in their decision to use billions of pounds of tax payers (my) money to bail out the failed corrupt western capitalist system. Again, fear and lies were used to justify this. I will certainly have no say at all in the inevitable public spending cuts to recoup (my) money. Why should my local hospital and my local library close so that the already wealthy elite can continue to receive their fat bankers bonuses when it was their greed,corruption and ineptitude that caused the crises in the first place ? The only 'say' we plebs get is which figure head the ruling elite puts in front of the cameras once every 5 years. Some democracy. | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.209.217 |
My sentiments exactly, Sean. We get to choose the colour of the wallpaper every five years, and that's it. | ||
| Seanmcd (Seanmcd) Username: Seanmcd Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 86.153.167.201 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J37jQLIPuqY&feature=related How much is fact? How much is fiction ? My fanboy imagination says Tony Blair and his family were threatened by the US Neo Con elite to go along with the 911 myth and the war in Iraq. Then when the Bush admin was on its way out he converted to Catholicism in order to get the power of the Vatican on his side. A show of muscle between Neo con Skull and bones men and Opus Dei ! OK maybe not. This whole thing would make a bloody good Dan Brown/James Rollins type thriller. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.70 |
Robert Harris put a sort of spin on that notion to produce The Ghost. Blair's book's number 10 in Asda's bestseller list. Val McDermid is number one. I predict by the end of next week Paul O'Grady will hit the top spot. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Then world literature is saved(; | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
You know, Fran, they say to new thriller writers that they should choose a bland, dull name. It improves sales, they think. So presumably Dan Brown could've sold more if he'd called himself Matt Brown instead, take the gloss off his colourful name. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 82.17.252.126 |
I'd still rather live under our current flawed semblance of a democracy than under any other system devised for governing human beings in history. That's how far we still have to go... One of the great attractions in the utopian sci-fi of Wells or Heinlein or Asimov [to think he inspired Al Qaeda lol] or Roddenberry, for me, is in seeing how intelligent men, with a learned view of the broader sweep of history, try to suggest ways of bettering the status quo by addressing all the problems within Western democracy that everyone has outlined here - I totally agree, Sean. We're very far from perfect, and in many respects still endemically corrupt, which is why some broader compromise solution needs to be struck between capitalist and Marxist thought (both fundamentally flawed in isolation) - and now is the time for that debate to begin! We need a new politics for a new post-9/11, post-"failure of the capitalist & communist experiments" age, without slipping back into isolationist superstition, dictatorship and warmongering... discuss. | ||
| Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels) Username: Mark_samuels Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 86.173.246.188 |
H.G. Wells was a swine. He treated women like sex-objects and was a fervent supporter of Stalin's Soviet Union and eugenics. His scientific utopia would have been a world "cleansed" of those with brown and black skins, christians and the disabled. Some chaps let him off the hook, in the way they don't do with, say, Lovecraft, because Wells was supposedly a "leftist". Mark S. P.S. Sorry: I have a bit of a thing about Wells. My ire spilt over from the Hodgson panel I organised at Fcon a few years ago, where Hope Hodgson was compared unfavourably to Wells by someone in the audience. | ||
| Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels) Username: Mark_samuels Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 86.173.246.188 |
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/wells/english/e_whws I promise I'll shut up now. Mark S. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
I think that H.G. Wells swallowed the "One World State" dream so thoroughly that he ended his life as a very disappointed man when it became obvious that the League of Nations wasn't going to be a stepping stone to that universalist utopia. Mind at the End of its Tether is a fairly bleak summary of his disillusionment. True, he did regard women as sex objects. Like every other man since the dawn of time... I regard women as sex objects, and if you are going to be honest, so do you (if you are a man). If you're not going to be honest, for tactical reasons, then of course you don't. Nonetheless you do. Despite the crap syntax of this paragraph, you know what I mean. Of course there's a difference between "regard as" and "treat as". Maybe Wells was guilty of the latter: he wanted a world free from the shackles of conventional morality in order to make getting women into bed easier. I have yet to meet a man who doesn't want that... By all means, misunderstand what I've just said and object to what you think I mean... I read a lot of Wells when I was younger but I can't say I recall any prejudice against "brown and black" skins or the disabled. Mind you, it has been many years since I read a Wells book, so I guess I ought to go back and re-read his works. On previous occasions, Mark (Samuels) has expressed his preference for Hodgson over Wells. It's just a question of taste, but personally I regard Wells as a vastly better writer. I can't stand Hodgson's style. The House on the Borderland was mostly an ordeal for me, though I do recall one chapter of considerable power, an almost Stapledon-like passage involving the speeding up of time and its effects on the solar system. More of that kind of genuine invention and less boring "swine things" and I would like Hodgson a lot more, probably. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
>>True, he did regard women as sex objects. Like every other man since the dawn of time... I regard women as sex objects, and if you are going to be honest, so do you (if you are a man). If you're not going to be honest, for tactical reasons, then of course you don't. Nonetheless you do. Despite the crap syntax of this paragraph, you know what I mean. Of course there's a difference between "regard as" and "treat as". Maybe Wells was guilty of the latter: he wanted a world free from the shackles of conventional morality in order to make getting women into bed easier. I have yet to meet a man who doesn't want that...<< 'Tis true. You men are all beasts.  | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 85.222.86.21 |
Rhys - mate, imagine I'm as dim-witted as I claim, and explain to me what you mean by men treating or regarding women as sex objects. And no, this is not a paltry attempt at an ambush of your viewpoint. Just genuinely curious. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.68 |
Nigel Mansell looks like HG Wells. This probably proves nothing but I think it's important to point the resemblance out. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.68 |
And unless the 'Forest Gump' tag sticks, it looks like Ed Miliboy will be the new leader of the Labour party, almost certainly ensuring a Tory general election victory next time around, unless the Lib-Dems seriously flatline, which could happen given how poorly Nick Clegg's doing as leader. | ||
| Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.134.41.150 |
Remember this? I don't often agree with the Tories, but hindsight is a wonderful thing... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2001/images/0,9350,449562,00.html |