Cries of 'Duce, Duce, Duce..' are echoing. Year I begins today, though formally on 24 June. Will it take us until Year XXI for civil war to break out?
Even the post modern imperialism of the Abyssinian invasions is reborn in the post modern imperialist adventures in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
You mean we can expect the railways to run on time ?
Something else: I vividly remember that on election night 1997, Channel 4 ran a satirical prog late on the evening of polling-day, before results came in. Quite amazingly (given how all media were understandably grovelling to NuLab at the time), a recurring skit featured a NuLab Youth movement, brown uniforms, goose-steppng, the lot. It even had Mandelson at their head which, given his jewish antecedents, caused me to shake my head in disbelief.
Anyone else recall this ? Wonder if this still exists - or did the Ministry of Truth expunge the tapes ...
You thimk the invasion of Iraq and the Abbysinian Fascist bid for empire were the same thing ?
It's not the time keeping it's the cost and the chances of disaster to worry about in the trains now.
And it's not so much German authoritarianism this looks like, ND; and I don't think it's racialist or anti semitic, which is trueish also of the years I to XXII.
But the Third Way? The corporatism? The steady closure of any possibility of what the Italians call the entro nel privato. We aren't permitted to fail to engage with the state now, and it's at an ever more intrusive level.
The conviction among these people that they are good people and can therefore be so trusted as to suspend long standing governmental and constitutional practice quite destroys the appetite to the point of having to get a bit of supper on arriving home.
They believe they know what's good for us, they always have, hence the skit you saw (I missed it but started making all kinds of fresh arrangements in summer 1997, so there must have been lots of those kinds of triggers); the ceremonies for the Olympics will be an eye opener.
N, It has been discussed that there is a re-emergence of imperialism as a positive way to deal with both problems of international order – “terrorism”, failed states, organized international crime, and economic and social development – and that this is embodied in 'a general attempt to revise British imperial history, and ameliorate views of British colonial practice.'
Traditionally the defence of British vital interests is the criterion for determining foreign policy . Now the defence of values as well as interests has been adopted.
“a just war, not based on territorial ambitions but on values” Blair said in 1999. And
“Globalisation has transformed economies and our working practices. But globalisation is not just economic, it is also a political and security phenomenon.”
They aren't the same thing, they are actions in different times, but the thinking behind Blair's expression of stance is pre- second War, and notably conforming to the moral beliefs expounded in the idea of a just war, rather than the acceptance of international law and the acceptance of treaty and precedent bound practice.
I prefer the idea of a just war to the fakery of "International Law" marginally .There is no such thing as International law. Your analysis seems to me to lack a concept of security extending beyond our own border by networks of treaty and alliance. What we used to think of as foreign policy in fact. A just war , as I recall , is originally a Medieval idea and might refer to a Christian war against the Moor or some thing of the sort so I `m going to leave that as a misleading expression. Lets say that our military incursions into Europe throughout the 19th century were designed to keep , where possible , the balance of power so as to avoid a Napoleon or any other single power being able to act against us . Part of these manoeuvres might well include supporting friendly powers as and when they were on the side of our interest which was that none should predominate . I see Iraq primarily in this light . Our security and standing in the world , which is the same thing , is built around an alliance with the US and by supporting the US in this our own security has been enhanced considerably. Yes there may be a few bombs thrown but I doubt they would be less if anyone had placated Islam . Our casualties have not been large and we would have no doubt preferred to have sat it out but the US would not and we have been obliged to act .
During our various wars of self interest there have always been appeals to a greater and grander moral purpose . Are you sure there is any more to this now than there has ever been ?
"Yes there may be a few bombs thrown but I doubt they would be less if anyone had placated Islam."
I doubt NOT invading Iraq is the same as "placating Islam".
But the invasion sends a signal that we think our lives (and our material comfort) are worth a lot more than "theirs". Who are "they"? WE don't get to decide that. "They" do. "They" are: anyone with something in common with the Iraqis: culture, race, religion, geographic proximity, oil, etc. What a way to enhance domestic security...
Post a Comment