We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Iraqi views of the London protest yesterday This remark by ‘G’ posted by Iraqi blogger Salam Pax pretty much perfectly sums up why I have such contempt for most of the protestors:
[T]ell your friends in London that G in Baghdad would have appreciated them much more if they had demonstrated against the atrocities of saddam. And if you could ask them when will be the next demonstration to support the people of north Korea, the democratic republic of Congo and Iran?
Amen to that, Bro!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
There were plenty of anti-Saddam protests in the 80’s – they weren’t all that popular of course.
After all, Saddam was a friendly dictator wasn’t he.
If he hadn’t invaded Kuwait, we’d still be propping him up. WMD or not.
I suggest you look up Mrs Thatcher’s response to the Israeli bombing of his nuclear facilities.
The world was outraged by Israel’s raid on June 7 1981. “Armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified. It represents a grave breach of international law,” Margaret Thatcher thundered. Jeane Kirkpatrick, the US ambassador to the UN and as stern a lecturer as Britain’s then prime minister, described it as “shocking” and compared it to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. American newspapers were as fulsome. “Israel’s sneak attack… was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression,” said the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times called it “state-sponsored terrorism”.
Just to remind ourselves of the esteem in which we held Saddam.
Or are we going to suggest that he was not already indulging in mass slaughter in 1981?
There were dozens of Iraqi nationals at my university who had been sponsored to do degrees and would rather run a kebab shop than go home.
You rather miss the point, Dave. Sure there were demonstrations against Saddam, but how big where they? Where were the pained expressions on the faces of the Socialists Workers then? Where was Pax Christi then? Did the protests compare to the one we say yesterday? And what makes you think we care what a Tory like Maggie thought about the subject?
So some folk condemned the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981? Okay, so folks said X 21 years ago, does it mean we are forever to hold the same stance even if circumstances radically change?
Remember the old Emerson quote about consistency being the hobgobblin of little minds.
In any event, the very fact that western nations once backed Saddam and his vile regime only increases our moral responsibility to put that aright. Which we have begun to do.
*shrug*
So what if people made speeches and statements. Words are pretty cheap. I didn’t notice anything substantial done to Israel in response so I’d imagine that everyone was chuckling about it over their tea.
As for supporting madmen. Jimmy “Which Crisis” Carter supported Pol Pot! So the did the Democrats in Congress at the time. It wasn’t until the news of the Killing Fields came out that anybody started changing their stance.
The fact is that the past policies of supporting tyrants as a means of establishing and maintaining stability in a region were flawed. Heck I’d go further and say outright that they were utterly boneheaded. The *current* policy of eliminating support for tyrants is the one we, meaning the entire bloody world, should have been following for the past century or more. That it’s taken this long to finally become a reality points to the miserably ineffective nature of educating duplomats in Political Science.
A very interesting thing is that, at one time, Political Science was taught as a part of History courses. Now, in America at least, Political Science has been divorced from History and is taught completely alone. What a crock. Political Science without any taint of History. Sounds like the modern State Department to me.
Perry,
Did the protests compare to the one we say yesterday?
I doubt if they did.
But none the less they still took place, even though they were roundly dismissed as being against a good friend.
People were prepared to protest against other nations like Lybia too, before they were considered to be a menace to the world.
I’m afraid I see a lot of selective memory here.
The *current* policy of eliminating support for tyrants is the one…
If that was a *policy* then I’d be a little less cynical than I am at the moment. But in my opinion its not.
We’re not really going after tyrants, at least not in any structured manner. Sure, we’ll pay lip service to some of these but where the tyrants are inconvenient or supportive, then it’ll be business as usual.
If there was a consistent and applied philosophy then sure, I’d sleep easier. But there isn’t. Nor is there likely to be.
ed: I have no idea what *shrug* is supposed to convey, other than the fact pixels are far cheaper than they should be… other than that, I find myself in the alarming position of agreeing with the essence of pretty much your entire comment.
Dave O’Neill: But none the less they still took place, even though they were roundly dismissed as being against a good friend.
Not dismissed by me, mate. I was one of those annoying people protesting against Apartheid era South Africa (and also occasionally getting into shouting matches with Marxist ANC supporters too, just to confuse people).
Heheheheh, Perry (just slightly off-topic), too bad that apartheid policy has been replaced with socialist policy, eh?
Salam Pax has also made a most unlikely enemy: James Lileks, for one of his other posts concerning George Bush.
Yeah, the more you hear from Salam pax, the more the earlier euphoria over him in the blogosphere looks pretty silly.
I won’t even begin to take him seriously until he drops the pseudonym. Back in the day, he had a plausible reason for it, but I’m not sure who or what he is hiding from now. The pseud does give him lots of freedom to peddle self-serving and unverifiable tales, like the one about his parents and his most recent one concerning his disappeared buddies.
Thank Allah his 15 minutes are nearly over.
G nails it, BTW. Whatever protests may have been mounted against Saddam decades ago, G’s point is that none of these people were marching against him, and still aren’t marching against actual ongoing atrocities, and so their claims to moral authority are pretty hollow.
I will not be writing Salam Pax off any time soon. He may not share your sentiments or the sentiments you would like to prescribe him. James Lilek may be right in his anger but Salam is in the middle of the mess and he does love his country. I also understand the pseudonym, there are many reasons to have one. Also, I do not remember Salam ever trying to be famous. Anyway, I wish him all the best.
No, Salaam has retreated to the London literary salons. G has stayed in country in Iraq, which might explain the evolution of his view of the occupation as being ‘as bad as sadaam’ (they arrested folks at a checkpoint!) to the quote that was run with this post by Perry.
Salaam cleverly escaped Iraq again at the first chance, so as to not spoil his anti-american screeds in the Guardian in his own mind by having had too much contact with reality.
Gosh, you’re right, David, he is in London. I just checked his blog for the first time in ages. Looks like much of the recent posts there are actually from Raed. From the most recent, in reference to the blast at the Italian police post:
For those who say people who don’t like Salam’s blog don’t like it because it tells them things they don’t want to hear: you’re right. I don’t like to hear stuff like this at all. It makes me think Iraqis are either savages, or shallow, self-absorbed whiners. Neither of which is a particularly good raw material to build a stable nation out of.
Hi.
1. *shrug* is meant to convery an actual shrug. I write as if I were in a conversation and physically speaking to someone. In that context I use *shrug* as a non-visual aid. I use *poop* rather less often. 🙂
2. “I find myself in the alarming position of agreeing with the essence of pretty much your entire comment. ”
Come to the Dark Side…. 🙂
3. “If that was a *policy* then I’d be a little less cynical than I am at the moment. But in my opinion its not.”
I’m sorry then because if you’re not convinced it’s a policy after two complete invasions and about forty separate speeches by President Bush & Company, there’s nothing I can add that could possibly convince you.
after two complete invasions and about forty separate speeches
I’m sorry I’m not entirely sure what you think that proves myself.
Two incomplete invasions and a lot of vascilation don’t a policy make, IMOP anyway.