Occupying the Moral High Ground

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
When you consider what most revolutions actually entail, how can 'permanent revolution' mean anything other than non-stop, all-out war?
Or is that what's desired, as long as it's 'the good war'?
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
Mr. Tea said:
When you consider what most revolutions actually entail, how can 'permanent revolution' mean anything other than non-stop, all-out war?
Or is that what's desired, as long as it's 'the good war'?
Click to expand...

I'm not a trot, so I'm reluctant to defend their ideas. There is probably all you need to know on that wiki page.
 
M

martin

----
Mr. Tea said:
When you consider what most revolutions actually entail, how can 'permanent revolution' mean anything other than non-stop, all-out war?
Or is that what's desired, as long as it's 'the good war'?
Click to expand...

It means that revolution is an ongoing concern, not a means to an end, so after 'the revolution', 'revolution' will continue to perpetuate itself in many forms - for instance, gassing the handicapped, re-educating 'slack' comrades, having fights over who gave whose boyfriend a blowjob and why boasting a PhD in Economics means you don't have to put the bins out on a Tuesday, etc

I did try asking Trots about this before, but all I got was a load of bad breath abuse
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
IdleRich said:
Yeah, apparently Vimothy's real name is Humphry.....alright, I meant Humphrys as in that Mark Humphrys link about Al Guardian.
Click to expand...

Ah right, I hadn't followed the link because I've heard the arguments before. Now that I've clicked on it I wish I hadn't. Some fairly despicable shit:
Sami Ramadani - a refugee from Saddam, saved by Britain, given a fantastic job as a senior lecturer at a British university and a great new life.
Click to expand...
So presumably this guy just turned up at immigration one day and was 'given' this marvellous job without having to show any qualifications whatsoever? Aren't 'we' wonderful.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
crackerjack said:
Ah right, I hadn't followed the link because I've heard the arguments before. Now that I've clicked on it I wish I hadn't. Some fairly despicable shit:

So presumably this guy just turned up at immigration one day and was 'given' this marvellous job without having to show any qualifications whatsoever? Aren't 'we' wonderful.
Click to expand...

Heard what arguments? Where's the despicable shit? Mark Humphry's site is pretty much spot on. Your example is completely without context, by the way. So a lecturer from Iraq was given a job in the UK. What's wrong with that?
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Your example is completely without context, by the way. So a lecturer from Iraq was given a job in the UK. What's wrong with that?"
Click to expand...
It is now because you've taken out the context. At no point is Crackerjack complaining about an Iraqi lecturer getting a job in the uk, it seems fairly clear to me that Crackerjack is pointing out that MH seems to think that just because Sami Ramadani had been "given" (ie had managed to get) a job in the UK he was not allowed to criticise uk policies in any way. CJ is also taking (ironic) issue with MH's use of the word "given" which seems to imply that Sami Ramadani was somehow plucked from Iraq and installed as a lecturer without any effort on his part. I can take that from Crackerjack's post, why can't you?
As for bits that are despicable, how about when he says that the left would "of course be appalled" at the following headline "A NEW ERA DAWNS IN IRAQ. IRAQI INSURGENTS LAY DOWN ARMS, CALL FOR 'PEACEFUL, DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS' IN DECEMBER. JOY SWEEPS THE COUNTRY; ELECTRICITY, OIL PRODUCTION BACK ON TRACK - FULL RESTORATION SOON. JUBILANT POPULACE CHEERS TROOPS - BUSH, US 'VINDICATED'."
The point being that everyone wants that, they just don't think that the US is going about it the right way, are people not allowed to hold that viewpoint?
Same as this bit
"Endless negativity about Iraq's future and hostility to anybody who is trying to make Iraq a better place."
Click to expand...
This is a question-begging statement - this is only a reasonable way to characterise criticism of the US if you accept that the US always and only has Iraq's best interests at heart. It's just a cheap way to close down debate.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
It is now because you've taken out the context. At no point is Crackerjack complaining about an Iraqi lecturer getting a job in the uk, it seems fairly clear to me that Crackerjack is pointing out that MH seems to think that just because Sami Ramadani had been "given" (ie had managed to get) a job in the UK he was not allowed to criticise uk policies in any way. CJ is also taking (ironic) issue with MH's use of the word "given" which seems to imply that Sami Ramadani was somehow plucked from Iraq and installed as a lecturer without any effort on his part. I can take that from Crackerjack's post, why can't you?
Click to expand...

Deap beaths mate - crackerjack quoted this:

Sami Ramadani - a refugee from Saddam, saved by Britain, given a fantastic job as a senior lecturer at a British university and a great new life.

He didn't say that Ramadani was criticising any policies in any way, just that he had moved to the UK. You provided (some) context, but I have no idea how you extracted that from crackerjack's post. Humphry's site is massive - just link to the quote.

As for bits that are despicable, how about when he says that the left would "of course be appalled" at the following headline "A NEW ERA DAWNS IN IRAQ. IRAQI INSURGENTS LAY DOWN ARMS, CALL FOR 'PEACEFUL, DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS' IN DECEMBER. JOY SWEEPS THE COUNTRY; ELECTRICITY, OIL PRODUCTION BACK ON TRACK - FULL RESTORATION SOON. JUBILANT POPULACE CHEERS TROOPS - BUSH, US 'VINDICATED'."
The point being that everyone wants that, they just don't think that the US is going about it the right way, are people not allowed to hold that viewpoint?
Click to expand...

That's hardly despicable (well, different strokes I guess), it's an honest question that expresses frusration. Does everyone really want that, even the people who don't believe in liberal democracy and enterprise and private property and all that? If so, why do people focus so relentlessly on the negative? If so, why do people support the "resistance" (i.e. death squads) and not the US/UK troops trying to achieve it?

Everyone is free to their own opinions, but the left doesn't believe the right when it says that it wants to make the world a better place. How would you feel if (say) you had gone to a far away country and risked your life to topple a terrible dictator only to have your efforts constantly disparaged and talked down as "imperialism" or a war for oil? The left doesn't have a good track record on these things (fighting tyrants) yet maintains its holier than thou attitude through thick and thin. What if Iraq acheives the stable democracy status which the US military is fighting for, will that be a further example of US imperialism? Will that be to the credit of the activists I see regularly in town, campaigning to "end the occupation of Muslim lands"? Will it be to the credit of Fisk, the Guardian or antiwar.com?

This is a question-begging statement - this is only a reasonable way to characterise criticism of the US if you accept that the US always and only has Iraq's best interests at heart. It's just a cheap way to close down debate.
Click to expand...

It's clearly not going to close down debate (such as it is). And criticism of anyone else? Oh yeah: Israel!
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
OK, I'll spell it all out. I assumed that you had read the site that you linked to but this is what MH said:

"Sami Ramadani - a refugee from Saddam, saved by Britain, given a fantastic job as a senior lecturer at a British university and a great new life. And how does he repay Britain? By openly defending the "resistance" that is killing brave British troops in Iraq - the very troops that have liberated his country from Saddam."
Click to expand...
Crackerjack (presumably sarcastically (that's a specific type of verbal irony where you say the opposite of what you mean, usually for emphasis)) said:

"So presumably this guy just turned up at immigration one day and was 'given' this marvellous job without having to show any qualifications whatsoever? Aren't 'we' wonderful."
Click to expand...
I assumed he was taking issue with MH's use of the word "given" as I said above. Implicit in that is criticism of the position that because you work in England you can't criticise the country.

That's hardly despicable (well, different strokes I guess)
Click to expand...
I dunno, you (rightly I thought) took issue with HMLT when he said you were evil because you were a "capitalist" - your point was that you both want what's best and just differ on how to go about it. I think MH is using just the same tactic that you argued with before.
Is it despicable? I don't know, it's pretty low to imply that Guardian staff/readers want thousands (and thousands) of people to die and live in a destabilised, violent squalor just to prove that they were right. The unfortunate situation is that they were right, that's all.

How would you feel if (say) you had gone to a far away country and risked your life to topple a terrible dictator only to have your efforts constantly disparaged and talked down as "imperialism" or a war for oil?
Click to expand...
I feel very sorry for soldiers who have risked their life in this war. I'm still allowed to have an opinion on the war though aren't I? Or do I just have to "support our boys"? One of the constant cheap tactics employed by our rulers to deflect criticism is to say that any criticism of the war is a betrayal of our soldiers - I have to say I didn't expect to hear that from you Vimothy.
Some might say that they have been betrayed by the government that took them there and that arguing against is in their best interests, either way the debate itself is surely not a betrayal.

The left doesn't have a good track record on these things (fighting tyrants) yet maintains its holier than thou attitude through thick and thin.
Click to expand...
Well, does the right?

"What if Iraq acheives the stable democracy status which the US military is fighting for, will that be a further example of US imperialism? Will that be to the credit of the activists I see regularly in town, campaigning to "end the occupation of Muslim lands"? Will it be to the credit of Fisk, the Guardian or antiwar.com?"
Click to expand...
If, by magic (or other means) Iraq stabilises tomorrow and every person there is happy and lives together for ever that means that people asking for the troops to come home were wrong in their analysis, it doesn't mean they were evil.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
OK, I'll spell it all out. I assumed that you had read the site that you linked to but this is what MH said:
Click to expand...

Look, it's a big site, I can't just remember off the top of my head every person mentioned. I was only asking for the context so that I knew what crackerjack was talking about.

Crackerjack (presumably sarcastically (that's a specific type of verbal irony where you say the opposite of what you mean, usually for emphasis)) said:

I assumed he was taking issue with MH's use of the word "given" as I said above. Implicit in that is criticism of the position that because you work in England you can't criticise the country.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining sarcasm to me. That's obviously not MH's point though. Humprhys is saying that after having fled Saddam's Iraq and been given (no sarcastic quotation marks) asylumn in the UK, you should not disparage the intent and efforts of your host country to liberate your fellows still suffering under Saddam's yoke. The Iraqi resistance regularly kills British troops (and Iraqi civilians), yet Ramadani protrays them as anti-imperialists trying to liberate their nation from occupation. In effect Ramadani offers moral justification for the murder of British peoples trying to help an oppressed nation.

I dunno, you (rightly I thought) took issue with HMLT when he said you were evil because you were a "capitalist" - your point was that you both want what's best and just differ on how to go about it. I think MH is using just the same tactic that you argued with before.
Is it despicable? I don't know, it's pretty low to imply that Guardian staff/readers want thousands (and thousands) of people to die and live in a destabilised, violent squalor just to prove that they were right. The unfortunate situation is that they were right, that's all.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right about that. The article in question is deliberately provocative because it's trying to prove a point

I feel very sorry for soldiers who have risked their life in this war. I'm still allowed to have an opinion on the war though aren't I? Or do I just have to "support our boys"? One of the constant cheap tactics employed by our rulers to deflect criticism is to say that any criticism of the war is a betrayal of our soldiers - I have to say I didn't expect to hear that from you Vimothy.
Some might say that they have been betrayed by the government that took them there and that arguing against is in their best interests, either way the debate itself is surely not a betrayal.
Click to expand...

There's no betrayal, this comes back to the point above. It's not criticism of the war but attributing unfair (despicable, even) intentions to those waging it that I was alluding to. Criticism is good, especially criticism of method (something that does seem to be lacking in places like the Guardian).

Well, does the right?
Click to expand...

Yep

If, by magic (or other means) Iraq stabilises tomorrow and every person there is happy and lives together for ever that means that people asking for the troops to come home were wrong in their analysis, it doesn't mean they were evil.
Click to expand...

No, but it would be nice people supported genuine (if perhaps misguided) efforts to spread democracy and prosperity in a region where both are badly lacking, rather than pouring scorn on those efforts, rubbishing those actually trying to help and generally leaping on every negative event as proof positive that we were right all along, it's all hopeless we should just go back to business as usual (and bad luck to Iraq, but anyway that's Bush's fault).
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
It's not a question of being "right all along" - I supported the invasion at the time, on the basis that even the US and UK, with their clearly ulterior motives, couldn't be worse for the country than Saddam. The horrific cock-up that has been made of the 'reconstruction', the obviously massive levels of anti-Western sentiment this has stirred up and the insurgency/civil war this sentiment is fuelling have unfortunately given the lie to this.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"That's obviously not MH's point though. Humprhys is saying that after having fled Saddam's Iraq and been given (no sarcastic quotation marks) asylumn in the UK, you should not disparage the intent and efforts of your host country to liberate your fellows still suffering under Saddam's yoke."
Click to expand...
The point is that Sami Ramadani obviously doesn't see it "an effort...to liberate his fellows" though does he? Given that that is the case why can't he criticise it? Because he's come here and been given asylum?
However you slice it that's what MH is saying (and you're defending) and I think it's pretty bad.

"Well, you're right about that. The article in question is deliberately provocative because it's trying to prove a point"
Click to expand...
I would have said "hysterical" rather than "provocative" but there you go.

"It's not criticism of the war but attributing unfair (despicable, even) intentions to those waging it that I was alluding to"
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right, they only went there to get those weapons of mass destruction and anyone who suggests otherwise is being completely unfair.
Or, on the other hand, Dick Cheney (for one) has made a lot of money from the war, just as people predicted. Is it totally beyond the pale to suggest that might have been part of the reason he was so keen on it? Perhaps he might have taken steps to ensure that he was totally separate from any profit that was made if he was going to be so offended by what people might say about his intentions.

No, but it would be nice people supported genuine (if perhaps misguided) efforts to spread democracy and prosperity in a region where both are badly lacking
Click to expand...
The point is, when we went to war we were told it was for a different reason - now we are told it's this, why should we believe it this time?
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
The point is that Sami Ramadani obviously doesn't see it "an effort...to liberate his fellows" though does he? Given that that is the case why can't he criticise it? Because he's come here and been given asylum?
However you slice it that's what MH is saying (and you're defending) and I think it's pretty bad.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point - Ramadani is offering moral jusitfication for the actions of murderous thugs. If you read that quote in the context of the rest of Humphrys site, he is talking about refugees from dictatorships supporting the enemies of the free democracies in which they reside when gratitude and support for freedom would be the more appropriate response. I don't read that as saying that refugees can't criticise their host state, but in any case, it's Humphry's position, not mine.

I would have said "hysterical" rather than "provocative" but there you go.
Click to expand...

"Ironic and insulting" sums it up best.

Yes, you're right, they only went there to get those weapons of mass destruction and anyone who suggests otherwise is being completely unfair.
Or, on the other hand, Dick Cheney (for one) has made a lot of money from the war, just as people predicted. Is it totally beyond the pale to suggest that might have been part of the reason he was so keen on it? Perhaps he might have taken steps to ensure that he was totally separate from any profit that was made if he was going to be so offended by what people might say about his intentions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fuck Dick Cheney, the guy's a dick. On the other hand, you have people who fight for the right reasons, suhc as these:

“Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”

- Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, a US marine killed in his third tour of Iraq (link: http://michellemalkin.com/2005/10/28/cpl-jeffrey-b-starr-what-the-nytimes-left-out/).

The point is, when we went to war we were told it was for a different reason - now we are told it's this, why should we believe it this time?
Click to expand...

You know why we went into Iraq - a recognition that the Mid East is a hideous mess, a mess from which flies human bombs and terror, and it's in our interests as well as the Mid East's to help them become stable and prosperous. That and saddam's ridiculous obfuscation regarding his WMDs.
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
vimothy, please can you list the great track record of 'the right' has when it comes to 'fighting tyrants'? is it bigger than the list of tyrants 'the right' has supported?


as you should know, there was no link between iraq and suicide bombers until after the invasion (which, i may as well point out again, was illegal).


your continued assumptions regarding the absolute goodness of the west and the shock at the lack of gratitude shown by those who are suffering due to our goodness, continues to astound.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
You're missing the point - Ramadani is offering moral jusitfication for the actions of murderous thugs. If you read that quote in the context of the rest of Humphrys site, he is talking about refugees from dictatorships supporting the enemies of the free democracies in which they reside when gratitude and support for freedom would be the more appropriate response. I don't read that as saying that refugees can't criticise their host state, but in any case, it's Humphry's position, not mine.
Click to expand...
OK, there are two things that Mark Humphrys is saying he has a problem with - one is Ramadani's opinion and the other is that Ramadani is saying it despite being a refugee.
He is saying that the second point is relevant to his right to say the first (or why mention it?). There is a debate to be had about what Ramadani said and whether he should be able to say it in the Guardian but using emotive and unfair points such as that is not helping and is part of the general tone and level of that website. OK, you are now distancing yourself from that bit but you linked to it and defended Humphrys at first.

"On the other hand, you have people who fight for the right reasons, suhc as these:"
Click to expand...
Again, I don't impugn the motives or actions of individual soldiers but they don't decide the purpose of the mission, it's Cheney and his friends who do that.

You know why we went into Iraq - a recognition that the Mid East is a hideous mess, a mess from which flies human bombs and terror, and it's in our interests as well as the Mid East's to help them become stable and prosperous.
Click to expand...
Well, if that was the case then (1) why didn't they say so? and (2) why did they take steps which they were warned would (and which in fact have) turn(ed) it in to a more hideous mess from which human bombs will only fly faster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top