Brilliant. How mich of our taxes are we actually putting into the church. Really. Taxi for Miliband indeed

http://cheap-airport-taxis.com/

Peter writes ‘The ‘little pricks’ that Marx, accurately, refers to im [sic] sure are the bad journalists, those who invent news, don’t check facts, invade private lives under the belief that what they find out is in the interests of the general public.’

What a shame these faux lefties fail to read Marx from the link provided in the original article!

Presumably, when Marx addressed the censors concerns of the supposed ‘impurity of the heart and imagination which is titillated by obscene pictures’, they would remain unable to detect any parallels to the Page 3 debate?

Doh!

If the only solution is military intervention, then I cannot be supportive of it. It may seem coldly pragmatic, but in a time when our governments are enormously indebted and we’re beginning to question whether we cannot afford frontline NHS services for British citizens, we cannot afford to go around the world righting wrongs.

If you read what I said, I did not in anyway excuse any of Mugabe’s actions, merely stating that whole reason he is in power is because of the power he was able to grab during and after the prolonged civil war.

Look at the completely objective statistics about civilian deaths as a consequence of the invasion – just because propagandists have exaggerated the fact does not diminish the horror of the deaths in Iraq – I’m not sure what your point is.

And NGO’s were able to conduct activities when the Taliban was in power.

“do you really disagree with the idea that everyone should, at least ideally, have human rights as we enjoy here in the UK?” How did you get that out of what I said? My point is that it is immoral for our governments to attempt to force democracy on other countries with the use of force.

“this argument used against the neocons has recently been superbly rebuffed by those activists of the arab spring.” This argument is ridiculous. If anything it refutes the idea the neocons had that “bringing democracy” required military force, it demonstrates that people are always capable of seizing freedom and democracy for themselves. Fun fact: many of the dictators overthrown in the Arab spring were actually our allies! Mubarak, in particular, springs to mind.

proves all the problems with intervention’ – this is simply your bias. i could flip this argument the other way and suggest that every intervention, regardless of its overall success, could be used to support the case of the critics of interventionism.

if you think we have a responsibility to act how can you then follow this with asking ‘how we can act responsibly without the use of military force by our governments’ without recognising that intervention can be the only credible option left. for example, when gadaffi was about to slaughter the people of misrata, intervention was the most likely (or perhaps only) to prevent that. a strongly worded un resolution or sanctions would have achieved nothing for those facing imminent attack. i do not see how wanting our forces to not go is any less of an abdication of our responsibility as a nation than saying me not wanting to go as an individual is an abdication of my responsibility as an individual. Also there is an obvious problem with letting volunteers do it as your citation of Spain demonstrates – they are less likely to win or be trained to a suitable level!

How on Earth can you blame the ‘poisonous legacy of foreign imperialism’ alone for Mugabe? the fact that other countries in africa have had leaders who do not neglect and kill their citizens in such an abhorrent manner demonstrates the fact that imperialism cannot be blamed for every post-independence problem in Africa. To characterise him as purely a consequence of previous western control is to deny him any agency or his responsibility for his own actions. You can only argue that intervention would not improve things in a country as destitute as Zimbabwe if you believe that it can never improve matters in another nation, a stance which is hard to engage with.

in relation to germany and yugoslavia, you dismiss that they were cases of benign humanitarian occupations. Germany was cited to demonstrate that foreign occupation can have long term benefits – even though humanitarian causes were not the initial reason for war. you dismiss bosnia as being a case where intervention could work because of casualties. however, the casualties argument is a very difficult one. for instance, with regard to iraq, people point to huge statistics of people who die as a consequence of western intervention but use figures which simply represent all deaths there since invasion, hardly a fair means of assessment. they also ignore the element of continuity of previous rates of death – such as horrendous child mortality rates in Iraq as a consequence of the neglect of healthcare.

NGOs can and do do good work without military intervention. again though, they cannot always do so. for instance, how can you argue that ‘If anything, the presence of a foreign occupation reduces the influence they can have, as they are inevitably associated with it.’ i explicitly pointed to the problems of women’s rights in afghanistan, as you too mentioned. the ngos helping on that issues COULD NOT be allowed to do their work with the Taliban, or sexually repressed lunatics’ as you aptly put it, were in charge. again, your stance lacks all nuance and does not recognise the complexities of the problems.

i do not follow you on the what if paragraph – as i see it your article built off a ‘what if’ theme suggesting that we would be better IF we had not intervened in afghanistan? thinking about contingency and where the decision could have been done differently is surely just as much a part of your article as it is in my response.

i can sympathise with questioning the wisdom of the neocons but do you really disagree with the idea that everyone should, at least ideally, have human rights as we enjoy here in the UK? are you that much of a cultural relativist that you see no benefits in women’s rights, rule of law, democracy, property rights, free speech etc for people in countires without those? i think the idea that some groups of people do not have/want or need the same rights is largely bunk. many people post iraq came out with the sort of drivel saying that democracy etc was a western idea not wanted by the those living in the middle east. this argument used against the neocons has recently been superbly rebuffed by those activists of the arab spring.

My point was that what has happened with Afghanistan proves all the problems with intervention – those in favour of it always point to some potential for an entirely benign and successful intervention in the future, when everything that has happened when such a thing is attempted displays its impossibility.

And, to be entirely frank, I do think that, as humans, we have a responsibility to act when dictators slaughter their own people in other countries. But the question is to work out how we can act responsibly without the use of military force by our governments. I would point to the potential for volunteer forces, organisations that could organise people so that, if you want to go to fight a wicked dictator overseas, that can be organised. To me, the demand that other people (the men and women that serve in our militaries) intervene in countries whose governments you find unpleasant represents an abdication of responsibility. Brave people signed up, for example, to fight fascism in Spain in the 1930′s, taking upon themselves to fight for a cause they thought was right.

‘Would Zimbabawe not surely be better off had Mugabe been toppled by outside forces?’ No. Absolutely not. If you think that a military intervention into an already unstable country whose enourmous problems, let’s be frank, are a result of the poisonous legacy of foreign imperialism would be good, then you are sorely mistaken.

Vis-a-vis the argument about intervention post-war Germany and former Yugoslavia, see my above response. I don’t know nearly enough about the situation in Sierra Leone to make an informed assessment.

With regard to NGO’s, there are great deal of war-torn, stricken countries where they operate and do a huge amount of good without a military intervention. If anything, the presence of a foreign occupation reduces the influence they can have, as they are inevitably associated with it.

My statement on the Taliban taking over is based on their own words, the weakness of the Afghan government (and the lack of loyalty that it commands from the Afghan people), and the huge support the organisation receives from Pakistan.

And the intervention in the former Yugoslavia was, at least in my view, extremely neo-conservative. “Thinking that human rights belong to everyone, neoconservatives support democracy promotion by the U.S. and other democracies.”

Thanks for commenting!

Your point about the Taliban ‘lacking conventional fighting capacity’ seems to me to be incorrect, after all, they seem to have done a pretty good job in fighting the highly advanced armies of NATO in the past ten years. It is entirely feasible that they could once again take over the country.

I do concede the point about referring to them as ‘sexually repressed lunatics’ – I may have gotten a little carried away with the language. But I do believe a group which treats women like beasts of burden, organises institutional rape, and is generally oppressive to all and sundry do probably have issues.

And I should have referred to them as mujahadeen, you are entirely correct.

But I cannot agree about the cases of Bosnia, Germany, etcetera which you cite as cases of benign ‘humanitarian occupations’. The civilian casualties alone discredit the idea of the benevolence of the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia. And the problem I find with comparing, say, the situation of post war europe to our current foreign policy is that one inevitably plays the ‘what if’ game. ‘What if we had not intervened to stop Hitler?’ is always the question asked. But if we’re following this argument I could say ‘well, we shouldn’t have approved the Treaty of Versailles’, or ‘we shouldn’t have gotten involved in World War One’.

My point is that we have no moral right to be pushing for ‘stability’ in Afghanistan, as we had no moral right to intervene in the first place!

Thanks for commenting!