I guess the point is that the so-called lout speaks to or reads things out to different audiences. He could have read out a speech on the same lines as the British officer - but there is a pretty small audience for that stuff. Anyone can be trained to talk like Tim C. They are fine words, but having been educated with these people, I wouldn't bet that he is, in person, the sort of individual who you expect him to be from those words. The denigration of Mr Bush is so much like what they always said about Pres Reagan. But most ordinary people found him reassuringly like them.
Sorry this is a day or two aftre the last posting.
I am not convinced that you can so easily dismiss the substantive content of thought from its manner of expression. Only if the referrant of Japanese and Bush administration statements are comparable are the "mind sets" and "reactions" comparable. Otherwise, presumably, if Pres Bush is reacting by defending something that is (objectively) profoundly right, and his reaction to widespread criticism is to stand up for right even more vociferously, then it is very unreasonable to compare his tenacity to the midguided single-mindedness of the Japanese in the 1930s. In fact, what I see is an even less defensible intellectual sleight on hand: that anyone who can be compared to the Japanese in their defense of their foreign policy, must be worthy of condemnation, because the Japanese were defending something so indefensible. As to the comment on the apology, I suppose it was the word "actually" that caused me to draw in breath - the sheer afterthought-ness of it.
Well, without sympathising for a moment, I would agree the slogan busines is a trifle difficult. There would appear really only to be two possibles: "Victory to the USA" or "Victory to Saddam". Victory to the USA might be expressed as "Saddam Must Go" or "Freedom for Iraq", while Victory to Saddam could also be expressed as "Bring Our Boys Home Now" or "Our Country is Wrong" or words to that effect. That has been the choice of protesters in London (along with a lot of flags and slogans supporting the Palestinians and other Muslim causes). Problematical as it is, protest against war policy while a country is at war inevitably gives succour to the enemy, either as propaganda, or reason for hoping the enemy will collapse because of domestic divisions. In this case it will also demoralise the Iraqi people who will (rightly) fear that if protesters like those in London prevail, they will be left high and dry, with Saddam in power and able to begin a new phase of mass murder. Either way, it will prolong the war, increase the likelihood of US, UK and Iraqi deaths, and demoralise our troops. It is, of course, frustrating if the Bush administration is your real target (the London protesters, who target America and capitalism, and have spent long years in bed with the USSR have no such qualms). But if anyone is serious about not endangering unnecessary death and misery, and reinforcing the fear on which Saddam's regime lives, then leave off the partisan trench warfare for two minutes and think of the Iraqi people (who don't much figure in any of these posts, I note). I think the best slogan would be "Freedom for the Iraqis". But it doesn't mention Bush, or Blair, or focus with self-righteous anger of "Who do they think they are?"
The US has not vetoed "hundreds" of resolutions about Israel. But it has, thank God, tried to defend that profoundly good, deeply wronged and maligned country against unceasing efforts to destroy it by war, and through the UN, by Arabs and the likes of George. Make Israel absolutely secure against any hostile force, and fully and permanently deter all neighbouring countries from even thinking about lifting a finger against Israel, or helping anyone to do so, and you will be able to solve the Palestinian "problem". I am aware that the internationally preferred method is to destroy Israel, and that has prevailed now for a long time. But perhaps we are seeing the start of a new strategy. I hope so. (Please forgive my parody of the style I so often read in these comments!)
You really think the current US-UK invasion of Iraq is comparable to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria? You must be mad, and you reveal the most terrible ignorance of history in pursuit of cheap jibes and unfunny jokes... And btwm "and apologies to any readers who are actually Japanese" - is a phrase that should live in infamy.
Geesh, talk about clutching at straws. One is a military officer, the other is an office-holding politician. One is a paid professional, the other depends entirely on votes. But if it's that melodious to your moral ears, make Tim Collins into George W's speech-writer. Better still, have a chat with Tim C. in private. You'll soon learn a thing or two about British army officers. And I agree, American officers will be saying things just as admirable in language just as measured. Why not just write "I hate President Bush and I will find any way, real or imaginary, to malign him" over and over again, in every comment.
I don't post again in order to disagree. I think that many of the points above are well made. But I am not sure it is appropriate to characterise the fall of ancien regimes as brought about by liberalisation. It has generally been because administrations ran out of money, largely because of war and/or foreign policy costs, and were forced to raise more through grants by very traditional bodies that were turned to contemporary radical ends (like the Estates General in pre-Revolutionary France), or demands that people refused to meet. This was the pattern in England in the 1640s, the American colonies in the 1760s, France in the 1780s, Russia in the 1900s (and World War I in 1917) and Russia in the 1990s (Afghanistan, Cold War). But I don't think these are appropriate analogies for post-colonial military dictatorships. What the appropriate comparisons for Saddam might be is another matter. Perhaps Ferdinand Marcos. But I think it is grossly over-zealous to expect or demand that a functioning democracy be established on the wreck of the Ba'athist dictatorship. The goal should be the establishment of civil society: the rule of law, independent and honest police and courts, freedom of speech and assemly, free and enforceable contract, minimum standards of social welfare. Without those first, nothing can be built.
Thanks for the replies. My comments about the demands that public opinion should drive foreign policy would apply as much to any recent administration, that of Pres Clinton certainly included, as to the current administration. I don't think that the idea of foreign policy needing a somewhat different treatment by mature voters to everyday interest group conflicts in any way contradicts the notion of a free press. Nor does the idea of a free press exempt its practitioners from criticism, or an assessment of the accuracy and helpfulness of their record. With resepct to Mexico I merely wanted to suggest that the citizenship issue has a longer history and more perspectives than a "deal" between Fox and Bush.
I think I might take what Senor Fox has to say publicly with a pinch of salt. As to credibility, the principal problem is not that things are said that it is difficult to substantiate, but that the things have had to be said in the first place to placate constant demands from everyone under the sun. The main problem the administration has is not being able to pursue its foreign policy without press, pundits and public demanding to have every ass-wipe carefully examined and justified every single hour of every day. The great diplomats of the past would not have lasted a day under this relentless know-it-all sceptically hostile intrusion.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2003 | 11 |
Total: 11 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by charlie b.:
Show all comments by charlie b..