Shamik Das


Friday, January 12, 2007

"Peace" isn't merely the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice; only war can bring global justice

Tony Blair in action in Plymouth    George Bush addressing the Iraq issue earlier this week

The Prime Minister today made a passionate defence of his interventionist foreign policy, saying Britain "must continue to fight wars".

Mr Blair's wide-ranging speech on board HMS Albion off the Plymouth coast came in the wake of President Bush's State of the Union address in which he pledged to increase troop levels in Iraq.

Tony Blair spoke of the continued need for an attack strategy, that military action should'nt be confined merely to peacekeeping or the defence of one's borders.

At the heart of the Blair strategy - from Sierra Leone and Kosovo through to Afghanistan and Iraq - is the pursuit of justice, whether or not it is explicitly in the national interest, allied to the defeat of Islamic terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head.

Milosevic & Saddam were and al-Qaeda & the Taleban still are dangerous, evil, menacing forces. Threats both to their own people and the wider world, not one tear should be shed, not one regret expressed at their defeat.

Sierra Leonians, Kosovan Muslims, Iraqis, Afghan women ... surely these people deserve justice? What kind of men would we be if we were to walk by on the other side of the road and leave them to their own devices in countries far, far away, left to wither and die at the heel of some of the vilest regimes in history.

Torture, murder, rape. Justice? No. How about giving these people democracy, freedom, liberty, the right to determine one's own future, to live by one's own beliefs: the rights we enjoy but are denied to many.

We are all human beings, and as the great John Fitgerald Kennedy once said "we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal". We are our brothers' keepers.

The aircraft carrier HMS Albion where the Prime Minister made his speech

And as the sun sets on Tony Blair's Premiership, it can only be hoped that his legacy is a British foreign policy that puts doing the right thing at its heart, a truly ethical, moral and just foreign policy which coupled with the amendment of the Treaty of Westphalia and a reformed United Nations will set the world free.

It may take ten, fifty or a hundred years for freedom to engulf the globe, but however long it takes I passionately believe that as one of the architects of real peace, history will look upon the PM favourably; he will be made righteous.

24 Comments:

Anonymous Iron Mike said...

"allied to the defeat of Islamic terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head"

Shamik what did Islamic terrorism have to do with the invasion of Iraq? Nothing. And if you are saying it did you are admitting that the Iraq War was wrong. It is well documented that Osama Bin Laden had declared a fatwa against Saddam and Bin Laden would have shot Saddam on sight.

You can live in your deluded little Shamik world and belief without question everything you hear in the press whilst back on planet earth we will continue to address the facts.

Also Shamik you say this:

Torture, murder, rape. Justice? No. How about giving these people democracy, freedom, liberty, the right to determine one's own future, to live by one's own beliefs: the rights we enjoy but are denied to many.

Well why are laws allowing torture, murder and discrimination of women enshrined in the Iraqi constition.

Under the current iraqi constition women can be stoned to death. People can be executed. Thousands of people are arrested and held without trial many of whom are routinely torted on many occasions by MI6 and the CIA.

Shamik come and live in planet earth not planet cookoo land.

15 January, 2007 15:38

 
Blogger Sham said...

In other words what you're saying is "to Hell with the rest of the world, I don't give a f*ck what's going on, we should have left Saddam in power and we should do nothing to defeat Muslim terrorism".

Why shouldn't Iraqis get democracy? Why?? It's a perfectly valid Right-wing argument, but coming from a socialist???

I'm in the real world, feel free to join me!

15 January, 2007 15:53

 
Anonymous Iron Mike said...

Iraq should have democracy. but their own democracy not a western imposed system. I am currently studying for a middle eastern history module and writing about this rather than doing the essay. But 91 years ago we tried to do the same thing. Impose our values and as Bush and Blair thought would happen Iraqis would rise up and embrace it. They didn't rise up. Just like in 1915 when Sherif Hussein promised an arab revolt when he knew there wouldn't be one.

I am all in favour of democracy, liberty and equal rights. My views on governance at a world level are well known. But it needs to be a government that works. Hell the Iraqi PM doesn't even want to be the PM!

15 January, 2007 18:56

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hell the Iraqi PM doesn't even want to be the PM!

Yeah, what's that all about!?!

15 January, 2007 20:33

 
Anonymous Iron Mike said...

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said in a published report that he wished he could leave office before his four-year term was up and would not run again.

"I didn't want to take this position," Maliki told the Wall Street Journal. "I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again."

15 January, 2007 23:31

 
Anonymous Iron Mike said...

Whilst the rest of us live on Planet Earth questioning all that the americans do and say back on planet Shamik, Shamik (the sole inhabitant) is leaning back on his deck chair (made by Haliburton, looking back at his house (made by Carlyle Industries) and drinking the water provided by the pipeline from his house through Afgana, Iraqistan and Israelikon. Whilst at the same time listening to US government propaganda tapes, watching George Bush, whilst the rest of his planet is falling apart!

15 January, 2007 23:35

 
Blogger Sham said...

What a fantastic imagination you have! It must be wonderful to live in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories, "illegal wars" and good old fashioned Ba'athism!!! ;)

Reality, I regret to inform you, is somewhat different ...

16 January, 2007 00:02

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"only war can bring global justice"

and slavery is freedom...

16 January, 2007 11:42

 
Blogger Sham said...

and slavery is freedom...

No, slavery isn't freedom. What a bizarre thing to say!

16 January, 2007 11:50

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What a bizarre thing to say!"

I don't think el Tom was being serious. at least i hope not!

16 January, 2007 12:09

 
Anonymous Iron Mike said...

Fantasy land? The invasion of Iraq was an illegal war! It was against international law!

Ok Shamik answer me this question. You want freedom and liberty and democracy in all countries?

Why not invade America? The US patriot act allows the FBI to basically do whatever they like without a court order. The US detains people without trials or evidence. The former director of the FBI says that there is not enough evidence to try Osama Bin Laden in a court of law for 9/11 let alone the people detained in Guatanamo bay many of whom are totally innocent like Bisher Al-rawi, a British resident, kidnapped from his own rented apartment in Ghana.

The 2000 presidential election result was questionable because of what happened in Florida, the fact that more people voted for Gore and also the fact that the justices on the Supreme Court appointed by Bush Senior were the ones that decided Bush Junior had won the election.

Shamik there is no such thing as good and evil. It is totally in the eye of the beholder. All war is wrong and no nation, no nation has any right to invade and kill other human beings on the premise of enforcing their political views on others.

16 January, 2007 14:40

 
Blogger Sham said...

Who are these legions of "innocent" people being locked up by America? In what way are they innocent? I'd much rather the "human rights" of extremists are infringed rather than letting them go around blowing themselves up and killing thousands of people.

there is no such thing as good and evil

Hitler?

All war is wrong

WW-II???

16 January, 2007 15:11

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post - I totally agree.

16 January, 2007 15:24

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Shamik there is no such thing as good and evil. It is totally in the eye of the beholder."

Er, what about Thatcher? :)

16 January, 2007 15:26

 
Anonymous Iron Mike said...

Shamik is just diverting the argument and not addressing my points because he has no logical answer!

16 January, 2007 17:08

 
Anonymous Iron Mike said...

but for much of the discussion his only supporter seemed to be “the Blairite blogger” Shamik Das, who was reportedly sighted at the back of the hall accusing anti-war questioners of being ”Ba’athists” and waving a Kalashnikov over his head.

16 January, 2007 17:14

 
Blogger Sham said...

Kalashnikov?! Too old school! And in any case, you haven't answered my question about what you'd have done in 1939!!!

16 January, 2007 17:29

 
Anonymous Iron Mike said...

What would I have done in 1939? I would have listened to Churchill in the first place and taken out Hitler whilst we still could in the early 1930's!

16 January, 2007 21:51

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've missed reading these neo-con posts.

How about before we go on our democratic crusades we look at a policy of actual results. What's "being free" worth if the people of Iraq have no jobs, water or electricity? Nothing.

I believe in prudence, not the long laundry list of enemies that you state. Al-Qaeda's the enemy and we should have focused solely on OSL. Moving our attention to Saddam "because he was evil" doesn't justify what has become a true catastrophe for Britain, the alliance, and most of all, Iraq.

I don't believe the world will ever be entirely free. You know why? Because some people don't want to be, as we'd define, 'free'. What use is 'democracy' and 'freedom' in Iraq if Iraqi's are going to vote for followers of folks like al-Sadr, a man who is just as bad as Mr Hussein, who calls for his people to kill coalition troops? So, we invade a country to 'liberate' people only for them to try and kill us.

All will be forgiven if you accept that you support an immoral, incoherent, and grossly utopian ideal. I'm all ears.

20 January, 2007 00:29

 
Blogger Sham said...

All will be forgiven if you accept that you support an immoral, incoherent, and grossly utopian ideal.

I'm afraid I won't be taking you up on your offer, for it is not I nor the Prime Minister nor even President Bush who should be seeking "forgiveness" but you, Galloway, Iron Mike and everyone else who'd rather Saddam was still in power.

I pity you for your inability to discern right from wrong, to understand the difference between good (Clinton, Bush & Blair) and evil (Milosevic, Saddam & Osama).

If ever you feel the need to repent, I am certain the Iraqi, Afghan and Kosovan people will be all ears ...

20 January, 2007 17:55

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm afraid I won't be taking you up on your offer, for it is not I nor the Prime Minister nor even President Bush who should be seeking "forgiveness" but you, Galloway, Iron Mike and everyone else who'd rather Saddam was still in power."

Instead we have Moqtada al-Sadr, Abu Deraa, and their death squads killing more people than Saddam could have imagined. According to UN estimates 34,000 people were killed in Iraq in 2006 - from your ivory tower can you really say things are better? Also grouping me in with Galloway shows your ignorance of my views.

"I pity you for your inability to discern right from wrong, to understand the difference between good (Clinton, Bush & Blair) and evil (Milosevic, Saddam & Osama."

Please refer to where I was backing any of the above? In addition, we didn't remove Milosevic from power. In fact, our bombing of Kosovo strengthened his grip on power. The people of Serbia overthrew him because he rigged an election.

I understand the difference between good and evil; but I also understand that we have to be prudent and have priorities. We can't go after everything that's evil because we have limits. Also if we remove all that is evil in the world we run the risk of facing an enemy even more abhorent. Sir, my moral clarity does not require questioning.

"If ever you feel the need to repent, I am certain the Iraqi, Afghan and Kosovan people will be all ears ..."

So I assume you're an expert all of a sudden on the internal dynamics of Iraqi, Afghan and Kosovan politics. As mentioned, Moqtada al-Sadr is the king maker in the Iraqi parliament and controls both of Iraq's security Ministries. Afghanistan is touch and go, with the Taliban winning perhaps not the war, but edging it with hearts and minds. Kosovo's Prime Minister Agim Çeku, is a thug and member of the KLA (a organisation we described as 'terrorist' until we bombed Serbia), and has stood by as Serbs have been cleansed from Kosovo (see http://www.savekosovo.org/
default.asp). Kosovo is in the thralls of Islamic extremism - the very 'extremists' that you oppose regularly in your blog.

I don't doubt your sincerity in believing in a "world of democracies". I do however meet your impatience with history with grave suspicion. This 'democracy experiment' thought up by chicken hawks in think-tanks and political party HQ's has failed. Miserably.

It's time that we take note of the last five years, including those people who have supported these policies. In fact, I won't even demand that they wash the blood of their hands.

21 January, 2007 14:24

 
Anonymous Laurie said...

What was wrong with the treaty of westphalia? It enabled strong states, and ultimately with it the ability to use state power for good and introduce the welfare state.

23 January, 2007 22:23

 
Blogger Sham said...

From what I as a layman understands, under international law, the Treaty of Westphalia prohibits regime change on its own grounds.

I interpret that as a licence for states to do whatever the hell they want to their own people without any comeback, so long as they don't threaten or attack another country nor commit "mass genocide" - so presumably they can kill a number of people just below the level to be considered "mass genocide" and get away with it!

Hence the need for another reason to attack Saddam - WMDs ...

24 January, 2007 13:37

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I interpret that as a licence for states to do whatever the hell they want to their own people without any comeback, so long as they don't threaten or attack another country nor commit "mass genocide" - so presumably they can kill a number of people just below the level to be considered "mass genocide" and get away with it!"

If it's genocide then its the obligation of the UN to become involved.

Btw, after all said and done - thanks for the link! Just noticed.

26 January, 2007 20:28

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home