Ah yes, Mirror, the shining beacon of everything we admire about the British press. Eh what the hell, maybe I'll read it.
Shame on any bastard who tramples on the souls of the thousands of people murdered on 9/11 to advance their own agenda. It's disgusting.
First off, I take political commentary by Mirror as seriously as I would sports reporting by Cigar Aficianado or adult film reviews by Seventeen - that is to say, I'll give it a chance but I view it with skepticism. After I read it, it was, as I expected, a poorly written bitchfest. Who are these "self loathing liberals" anyway? If this anti-Americanism is prevalent, he could have cited one example. And what is his point? That because 9/11 was so horrible, because America is not to blame for all the world's ills, because victims of 9/11 had families, America deserves a carte blanche in its foreign policy? Mike is right. this idiot is using 9/11 victims as martyrs for his own political agendas. If he honestly wanted to write a column criticizing anti-Americanism, he could have simply said "It is unreasonable to blame America for everything that is wrong and certainly inexcusable to say it brought 9/11 upon itself" and then provided proper support. But of course, all of the above is irrelevant, as the writer lost all credibility here. He clearly does not have access to television, newspapers or the internet, yet has the galls to write an opinion column on the real world?
So the writer's pro-American, big deal. He makes some good points, especially this one: But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in Riyadh. Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be - rich, free, strong, open, optimistic.
You can disagree with a country policies without hating her. I don't know who this guy is addressing but every Briton that I've talked to who strongly disagrees with the current US administration still vacations in the US, buys US music, watches US movies and really likes the US!
The reminders of 9/11 are a little excessive but he really isn't using it. he is stating what happened to America and criticizing Britons for not admiring our restraint. Using it is when people use Sept. 11th or whatever to advocate something that isn't really related. he isn't really pushing an agenda either He's saying shut up this, this and this happened and all we're doing is bitching about the US "war mongering".
You know you've got the armchair rambos on the run when they start quoting Tony Parsons at you. Alex, I strongly advise you to explore the Daily Mirror archive for coverage and reporting on the War on Terror, the US-led campaign in Afghanistan, the detention centre on Cuba, President Bush, President Bush's foreign policy, American attitudes toward the world, the US/UK stance on war against Iraq and any other aspect of this caboodle. Why, knowing what a reactionary little foot-stomper you are, I should imagine the fireworks will be quite something to behold. Suffice it to say that Tony Parsons is all you got. And that's not a lot. Believe me.
Nice find there Colin, that was an extremely well written article and he makes some very valid points.
Yes Colin, great article. This excerpt below really struck a chord, given the thread I started on the tendency to demonize Bush and the Republicans as "evil." And when American power is actually deployed, this free-floating animosity mutates into a kind of hatred. Do I exaggerate? Just take a look at some of the "anti-war" demonstrations in the U.S. and Europe. "Bomb Texas. I Like Iraq," was a recent slogan. "Bush is the Real Terrorist" announces another. The imputation of evil motives to this White House among otherwise intelligent people is now simply routine. It is a given that the United States could not be sincere in its attempt to rid the world of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. It has to be a cloak for an oil-grab; or a Zionist conspiracy; or a corporate coup. Bush's cabinet, according to John Le Carre, is a "junta," - no different in legitimacy than the junta raping Burma or or the military dictator in Pyongyang. Yep, simply routine.
Utter garbage. 1) This man is fantasising if he genuinely believes Blair has made Britain into a "world power". Does he (or anyone else) believe that if Bush is determined to wage war against country x, that Blair can put a stop to it? Of course not. 2) He recites the old line about how the Palestinians were offered 98%, etc. How many countries would accept a deal if they were told: "we'll give you independence, but we'll still keep some of your land". Answer: no-one could accept that. Where he is correct to say is that America is, in the round, a force for good in the world. This is because it's fundamental principles are correct. But where he is catastrophically wrong is in trying to suggest that people who oppose an Iraqi war (so-called "anti-Americans") don't agree with that. A blind man could see that America has made a major contribution to improving the standard of life for people in many parts of the globe. What "anti-Americans" are trying to point out is that there are dangers in the American Government's current strategy. It's no more than friendly advice.
Well, they should have accepted that deal...it was the best they were going to get in the context of realpolitik in the Middle East. But the fact is Arafat couldn't, or wouldn't, sell it to his people and the radicals. Let's get real here: Hamas and Hezbollah are NOT interested in political solutions. For some, they STILL subscribe to the COMPLETE fantasy of pushing Israel back into the sea. Such a view is WAY more fantastic than Andrew Sullivan thinking Blair has morphed Britain into a world power. Sure they're aggrieved. OK, so NOW what? From what I can see, not much more than some more suicide bombers. John LeCarre is giving "friendly advice?" Well...um... OK. C'mon, let's get real here AGAIN. Sullivan is right...there is a real loathing of America amongst the left, WAY out of proportion to what America really is trying to be, and do, as a nation. Sure, reasonable people can disagree about policy and strategy. But a guy like Gerhard Shroeder is about as crass a politician as you can be, catering to the left/green/anti-war (and yes, anti-American) strains in his electorate. Blair at least has the courage of his convictions.
Above all if that presumed 98% (no documents stating the exact offers, Israel refused to produce them and the 2 parts infact say different things about the "generous" offers made by barak) is about the 20% of the old Palestine. The 80% is Israel and Israel should be happy with that, why to steal some more land? And all this in violation of UN resolutions who clearly affirmed that occupied territories are not israeli's. Talking about rogue countries ignoring and violating UN resolutions.
I don't believe he is saying that Blair can veto any US war action. However, in terms of people who influence Bush, Blair is at the top of the list. Regarding Israel/Palestine. The major sticking point to Barak's proposal was't the amount of land being turned over but rather the right of refugees to return. Arafat wanted the refugees to return not to the new Palestinian state but rather to Israel in effect making two Palestinian states.
Sure but also sharon and likud are not interested. sharon has said more than once that he will defend even the tiniest colony in OT. I failed to see the official document with the exact terms of the famous offer, can you give me a link? It is complete fantasy, impossible to realize, and unfair nowadays. But let's talk about reality instead of focusing always and only on palestinian fantasies (the great palestine), let's talk about Great Israel. This is still a work in progress as the settlements wide and new ones are projected and builded. Against both "great-isms", one is in the dreams of a good part of palestinian ppl the other is in actual progress. And as you can imagine palestinians don't like it really that much.
I don't think anything is more fantastic than thinking that Britain is a world power, Yes, Le Carre is giving friendly advice. What he is saying is that the American leadership should ignore the short-term vested interests (ie profits from the oil industry in the post-Saddam Iraq) for the good of world peace. He may be puting it a bit bluntly, but I believe that he thinks the American nation is fundamentally good. It depends what you mean by the "left". Some would say that Tony Blair and his Government are of the "left". Anyway, the fact remains that the vast majority still consume American products, so I don't think there as many people who "loathe" America as you would imagine. There is a danger of you being paranoid here. I'm sorrry, but Blair is as "crass" a politician as any other, including Schroeder. He has abandoned any number of dearly-held principles (nationalisation of public service industries, ethical foreign policy, European integration to name but three) on the altar of popular support. I wasn't particularly happy that Schroeder was re-elected either, but for different reasons. His economic record is very poor, for example. As a result, he was in a desperate position and started making crazy promises. All the other European countries realise he went too far.
Further to my last post:- Blair's support of Bush is another example of crassness, rather than "courage of his convictions" (nice one!). This is because by generally supporting Bush, he has completely outflanked the Tory "opposition". The Tories can't exactly take a different line because a) any closer to Bush is physically impossible, , and b) the Tories would have no credibility if they opposed war on their previous track record. Blair supporting Bush is really cynical politics of the highest order.
The fact that no-one could realistically veto US action suggests that there are no true world powers, only regional powers. (apart from the US itself, of course) And his exact words were: "In fact, Blair has managed to vault Britain back to the status of a genuine world power. When he huddles with George Bush at Camp David at the end of this month, he will be the most powerful British prime minister since Churchill at Yalta." Well I can think of plenty: 1) Blair himself had more power when Clinton was President, and even before Sep. 11 with Bush II as President. 2) Thatcher had undoubtedly more power in the mid 80s than Blair does now. 3) Any of the PMs before the complete break-up of the Empire (ie early 1960s) had more power. So that means Churchill (second time), Attlee, Eden, McMillan and maybe even Wilson (first time). So (IMO) only Major, Wilson (second time), Callaghan, Heath and Douglas-Hume had less world power than Blair does today. And the reasons for these are obvious.
Fine, enjoy the cheap shot while you can. It's a free country. But when we exercise military action in Iraq -- which, by the way, we are going to do if Saddam doesn't hightail it out of Dodge -- and Blair comes along for the ride on THIS issue, as he most certainly will, even while the vast majority of his electorate don't like the idea, then...well, I don't know what YOU might call it, but it certainly won't be defined as a crass political act.
I don't think a pretzel could twist itself into a knot tighter than the one contained in THIS argument.
What?? With a "junta" in power? If this is friendly advice, I'd hate to see what you would define as "invective!"