Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well worth a read, and if convinced - as I am - worth writing to your MP within the next 48 hours to stop this insane rush to war against a country that has never threatened the United Kingdom nor the interests of the United Kingdom.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....sh-to-war.html

Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

I am moved to write what follows by a terrible feeling of powerlessness as the government of my country rushes towards a war for which it knows it has no mandate.

It appears that a decision has already been taken in Washington DC to launch some sort of attack on Syria. It also seems that the British government wishes to join in that attack. The House of Commons has been recalled but the behaviour of the Opposition Leader (and of the leader of the Liberal Democrats) suggests that they are not prepared to question this involvement with any vigour. If British people wish to oppose this bizarre and perilous adventure, it is therefore up to them to contact their MPs directly.

This posting is designed to help them to do so, calmly, reasonably, politely and logically while there is yet time. A decisive vote against British involvement is still quite possible, and would be an important demonstration of national maturity and responsibility, as well as a permanent check on the incurable enthusiasm of some politicians for war and its alleged glamour and glory.

Here are some arguments which you might wish to use, if and when (as I urge you to ) you contact your MP in the next two days.

It is being suggested (as it always is) that the planned attack will be precise, surgical, proportionate etc etc etc.

The truth is that nobody ever really knows the final consequence of any act of violence. Violence generally results in retaliation, which in this case might take many unpredictable forms.

Wars often begin with minor incidents, minor anyway to start with, which then bleed without ceasing until they have spread a vast red stain on much of the surface of the Earth. They are often begun on the basis of mistaken information, or indeed of lies. They are often begun by credulity, by emotionalism and by the failure of responsible persons to see through propaganda.

That is why thoughtful people hesitate greatly before even contemplating such acts, generally preferring to do them only in self-defence. When the violence involves a military attack on a sovereign country with which we are not at war, the matter is still more risky.

Precision warfare is a myth. On several occasions, supposedly super-accurate airstrikes on Libya resulted in the undisputed deaths of several entirely innocent people, including small children. Our attacks on Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis killed such dangerous persons as a make-up lady at Serbian national TV headquarters. If our concern is for the innocent, the launch of bombs and missiles is an odd way of showing it.

The moral clothing in which this attack is dressed is a mass of rags and tatters. The very same people demanding punishment for the Syrian state (including the discredited Anthony Blair) are those who defend or overlook the terrible mass killings by the Egyptian government. That government, which came to power in a blatant military coup, has - and I put this at its mildest – no more legitimacy than the government in Damascus. What is more, there is no dispute at all about who is responsible for the recent mass shootings of demonstrators in Egypt. Yet neitehr Washington nor London (who claim to be abe to descry Syria's guilt by some sort of magic process) will even concede that a putsch has taken place in Cairo.

If we are outraged by governments that kill their own people, our outrage cannot be selective and aimed at only one government which does this. If it is selective, then it is false and has another purpose. What is that purpose? We are not told.

At the time of writing, the United Nations teams have barely begun their investigation into the episode. The Syrian government deny their involvement. There is no proof that they are lying. It is far from impossible to believe that the rebels have resorted to such weapons. In fact, it makes far more sense for them to have done so than for the Syrian government. That government has the upper hand in its civil war at present. It knows perfectly well that proof of its complicity in the use of poison gas will open it to attack. It also knows that such proof will remove the protection it has had up till now from the UN Security Council and the Russian-Chinese veto.

The rush to take action before those teams have reported is frighteningly reminiscent of the rush to attack Iraq, and the withdrawal of Hans Blix’s inspection teams from that country, which were of course on the point of discovering that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Governments simply cannot be trusted to act wisely or responsibly in such matters. They have repeatedly shown this in recent years. That is why we have a Parliament and a free press, to scrutinize and question such things. What is the rush? Why are we having the sentence first, and the evidence and the verdict afterwards? Mr Cameron should be told he cannot have his war until he has proof that it is justified, and until he can show that the actions that he plans are in the interests of this country.

Please do what you can, while you can. There are many honourable reasons for opposing this attack. Whether you are of the Left or Right, liberal or conservative, Christian, of another faith or without faith, patriot or internationalist, all can unite on the simple issues of preferring truth to falsehood, calm justice to wild, flailing vengeance , and careful deliberation to rush to judgement.

Please, do what you can to stop this.

As an add on, where are the American left now that it's warmongering Obama and not warmongering Bush in the hotseat? nowhere to be seen - although i'm happy to see George Galloway and others on the British let opposing this disgrace that the media and political class are desperate to drag us into.

Thoughts?

[Ardemax]

It appears most of Labour oppose any involvement. Good.

[dbgtz]

It appears most of Labour oppose any involvement. Good.

Labour oppose everything when in opposition but if they were in power they would do exactly the same.

[AgnesIO]

Labour oppose everything when in opposition but if they were in power they would do exactly the same.

Spot on.

--

The only thing I would say is that the use of chemical weapons would warrant international action and SOMEONE has to enforce that. I wouldn't totally oppose it, but only if ground troops were not used ( an act that I refuse to accept would be of any benefit whatsoever.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Ardemax]

Labour oppose everything when in opposition but if they were in power they would do exactly the same.

To be fair Labour has agreed a lot of the time with Tory policies over the past year or so. So for them to be opposed to it surely sends out a strong signal.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Spot on.

--

The only thing I would say is that the use of chemical weapons would warrant international action and SOMEONE has to enforce that. I wouldn't totally oppose it, but only if ground troops were not used ( an act that I refuse to accept would be of any benefit whatsoever.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

Why do chemical weapons warrant 'international' (aka US, UK and France) military action? Who says it does and why should we assume it does?

It appears most of Labour oppose any involvement. Good.

I haven't seen any evidence of that - indeed I read that Miliband is going to back military action. I can safely bet that Labour will vote with the Government to force military action on the matter when the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Indeed, the only political party leader who I have seen opposing this war has been Nigel Farage (on RT) and I know George Galloway (RESPECT MP) has been vocal on Twitter. Other than that, i've not seen much else due to the media blackout of any dissenting opinions on Sky, the BBC and most of the papers.

It's good to see Diane Abbott MP threatening to resign from the Labour frontbench.. whether she will or not though is another thing.

[Ardemax]

I haven't seen any evidence of that - indeed I read that Miliband is going to back military action. I can safely bet that Labour will vote with the Government to force military action on the matter when the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Indeed, the only political party leader who I have seen opposing this war has been Nigel Farage (on RT) and I know George Galloway (RESPECT MP) has been vocal on Twitter. Other than that, i've not seen much else due to the media blackout of any dissenting opinions on Sky, the BBC and most of the papers.

It's good to see Diane Abbott MP threatening to resign from the Labour frontbench.. whether she will or not though is another thing.

A leader does not always speak for the party, as I'm sure will be made clear over the next few days.

[AgnesIO]

Why do chemical weapons warrant 'international' (aka US, UK and France) military action? Who says it does and why should we assume it does?



I haven't seen any evidence of that - indeed I read that Miliband is going to back military action. I can safely bet that Labour will vote with the Government to force military action on the matter when the vote takes place in the House of Commons. Indeed, the only political party leader who I have seen opposing this war has been Nigel Farage (on RT) and I know George Galloway (RESPECT MP) has been vocal on Twitter. Other than that, i've not seen much else due to the media blackout of any dissenting opinions on Sky, the BBC and most of the papers.

It's good to see Diane Abbott MP threatening to resign from the Labour frontbench.. whether she will or not though is another thing.

Viewpoint basically explained here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428

[-:Undertaker:-]

Viewpoint basically explained here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428

Well if you want to go by what International Law (which isn't what I asked you to justify) then you'd find that Syria isn't a signatory to the Convention against Chemical Weapons so therefore is perfectly entitled to use them as a sovereign state.

But as I alluded to - i'm not asking for clarification on international law (which is meaningless anyway) - i'm asking you why you made the (supposed) moral claim that someone has to act when a state uses chemical weapons. And i'm asking, why? who says so and under what authority?

I don't understand the false outrage surrounding chemical weapons as i've never understood exactly why suffocating to death with a toxic gas is seemingly a thousand times worse than being blown to bits by exploding shrapnel.

[AgnesIO]

Well if you want to go by what International Law (which isn't what I asked you to justify) then you'd find that Syria isn't a signatory to the Convention against Chemical Weapons so therefore is perfectly entitled to use them as a sovereign state.

But as I alluded to - i'm not asking for clarification on international law (which is meaningless anyway) - i'm asking you why you made the (supposed) moral claim that someone has to act when a state uses chemical weapons. And i'm asking, why? who says so and under what authority?

I don't understand the false outrage surrounding chemical weapons as i've never understood exactly why suffocating to death with a toxic gas is seemingly a thousand times worse than being blown to bits by exploding shrapnel.

I am aware that Syria is not a signatory to this, I don't need you to tell me! The key part of my post was "I would say", meaning in my view. It is of my view that when a state is committing genocide (and the like), someone should step in - I don't think atrocities such as Rwanda should be able to happen and I cannot see how any decent human being can possibly just stand there and watch as it does happen. I know your view is very much "as long as the UK is happy, nobody else matters", but my view of the role of the state on the international stage is evidently very different to yours.