Sorry, last one until someone else replies promise! Just found this:
This is an extract of a panaroma programme screened last Sunday. I had meant to watch it myself, but couldn’t. If you want to read the whole article:
Can empirical truth ever mask the black curtain of belief?
You are certainly informed, Matt, and you are right to make the case that Saddam Hussein is a real threat, especially given the ‘Holiday in Iraq’ and ‘Saddam Hussein: profile’ programmes shown yesterday.
You arguments are real, and much of your objection to the anti-war points are also fair and correct. Even if we were agreed on his having WMDs and agreed that there is an urgent need not only to disarm him and stop terrorists gaining access to his weapons, but to install (far easier said than done) a more benign political system for the Iraqi people, the habit of which may spread elsewhere in the Middle-East, even if we agreed on all of that, you CANNOT be in denial of the enormous damage a war would cause around all of the world. You have to realise the crucial importance of inclusive and secure international alliances in guaranteeing some sort of peace stability and order on the international stage.
Please read through my posts again, and have a look at the ‘Plaigarism’ thread near this one. There is a lot to Know to get an accurate view of the Iraq crisis, and the various other issues that are being played out as the gaps in international grow ever wider. This is complex stuff. War (as complex as some of the arguments for it seem to be) though, would be relative to cutting the Gordian knot on a long-standing international consensus. As painful as the prospect must seem, that knot has to be untied. Tony Blair (as difficult as it would be for him) is probably the only person in a real position to do that.
As for your point regarding government terror warnings being entirely unrelated to the upcoming march, I am quite confident you are wrong. I can tell you how sinister the intelligence services can be in this country. My phones and internet access are being tapped and played around with. The reason I can get on with my own political activism, is because is NOT a consensus within the British establishment about going to war. The war in itself IS difficult to justify, and seen in the perspective of a new international power struggle, the Mandarins in the civil service are reluctant to allow COBRA decisions to infringe on the activities of the anti-war movement too much, because it is in their (i.e. the government departments, I.E. the country) interests to allow the anti-war movement to pick up weight. This troop deployment in Haethrow (as surprising as it may seem, and difficult to come to terms with) is, outside of actually protecting us from a steady terrorist threat, designed to scare the shit out of the ‘bewildered herd’ that is the British public. It has been done in preparation for every single war where public opinion has wavered. Terror warnings (usually kept secret) are passed onto the public, in an alarmist way, so as to soften public opinion. Although much of what is written in it is a little wrong and out-dated now, I seriously recommend you also my ‘Case against war’ post in the ‘War on Iraq’ thread in the Essays and Theses’ forum. I spell it out as clearly as you need. It is a much easier and much more comfortable knowledge, being frightened of another country, or another leader, or a real terrorist network. Being frightened of your own government is quite a different matter. I must concede that I am not, but that’s because I feel I have their actions in the full perspective of everything that’s going on in the internatinoal scene. Know the truth.
As the world’s one undisputed superpower, it is surely the responsibility of the USA to protect the most blessed and sacred institution of world government, the UN. The Franco-German plan was, like the US plan, designed to implement UN resolution 1441. For the US to respond to an alternative plan to implement one of 1441 UN resolutions, by saying that if their plan is used, then the UN will be irrelevant, IS outrageous and wholely irresponsible. They are wiling to say such a thing about the UN whilst calmly saying that NATO will survive, because the UN does not serve US interests in quite the same way as NATO, or the IMF, or the World Bank, or the WTO. Some say that these organisations higher influence is just a cloak to mask a new-found zeal for US worldwide imperialism. The source of this zeal is understandable when seen in the context of the US being detached (geographically) from much of the outer world, and seen in terms of the fact that the US has relative solidarity on most foreign policy issues(I need not comment on some of the tactics used to acheive this solidarity), whereas the various large countries and supranational entities in the rest of the world do not have this solidarity. This disunity often causes problems for US interests, ususally with their international trade and the exploits of their TNCs, but sometimes, as with 9/11, domestically too. When they percieve the rest of the world as warrior-like troublemakers, whilst the US is happy and comfortable in their peaceful idyll, the ‘imperialist’ tendencies that we see, become apparent. It may be the case that many within the American administration and the Washington consensus, in light of this perception of the rest of the world, simply do not see the full extent to which American foreign policy and TNC activity can damage the fragile politics and economic stability of other parts of the world. This is why world government, and greater transparency and Accountability is needed within the organisations and insitutions whose decision-making is global in impact. US society (roughly around 1980, conincidentally enough) saw a streak of anti-intellectual sentiment sweep the country. This sentiment is running dry now, and those on the world stage who did not join the neoliberal consensus, see now as the perfect time for the US and UK to get their come-uppance.
As far as media sources from abroad are concerned, I’m sorry Matt, but the best one is on Teletext. Page 147.
I wouldn’t know where to start in recommending a pro-euro newsletter. Give me your email address, and I’ll give you some details. I generally think it’s bad news to subscribe to the newsletter of one side of a complex debate. But good for you anyway. I’m looking forward to the euro debate. I jump onto the fence quite often.
As far as Blair’s sincerity is concerned, I agree that his performance on Newsnight was impressive, but I have also read the most devastating critique of Blair’s position and performance on this issue, and find it as convincing as I found Blair. I will send it to you. Or you can find it (it has two parts) on the ‘Media Alerts’ section of medialens.org
I think someone else made this point elsewhere, the UN isn’t the most blessed and great thng it’s supposed to be, it’s got a load of tyrants, despots and other such fed up countries sitting in it. It’s a good talking place, but it’s also got some major flaws. To say it has the last say on international matters is equivalent to giving away the power to protect oneself. That’s why Israel largely ignore it, it knows it is in a situation where it cannot listen to the UN. Not that that justifies the gross treatment of the Palestinians at all.