Monday, 26 August 2013

Heed The Lesson

Of 1914, says Peter McKay.

"Only a peace conference, not air strikes, can stop further bloodshed," explains Patrick Cockburn.

"In a lecture theatre somewhere, men and women from our Armed Forces are getting a refresher course in horror," is one of the remarkable lines in this piece by Mic Wright.

Before we bomb Syria, then we should seek proof of guilt, insists Peter Hitchens.

And I wonder if William Hague could tell us how acting "without complete unity on the UN Security Council" worked out 10 years ago?


  1. George Galloway has today called Peter Hitchens "one if the last honest British journalists" and commended him on his "outstanding" latest article against the rush to war with Syria.

    This comes after the EDL's Tommy Robinson recently approvingly re-Tweeted Hitchens article on mass immigration.

    Goodness me, the man has allies all over the political spectrum.

  2. I, too, have just retweeted the link to his Syria post today. Make of that what you will.

  3. I could see you as an MP for Bradford once George retires - you speak the truth

  4. You are very kind, but ... no, actually, I am open to offers. But I cannot see Bradford West going for me.

  5. Your mate (I believe) Rod Dreher: "John Kerry says evidence of Assad’s guilt is “undeniable.” Colin Powell said evidence for Iraq’s WMD program was “irrefutable.” We’ve heard it before."

  6. This all reminds me of the notorious "baby incubator" story used to dupe the US Congress into supporting the 1991 Gulf War.

    And, indeed, the "45 seconds" claim used to dupe Parliament into war on Iraq.

    Surely we are not going to fall for the same old neocon bag of tricks once again?

    If it's massacres that they're against (and what difference does it make whether it is bullets or chemicals used to kill people?) then why aren't they going to war with Bahrain and Egypt?

    Indeed, why did the US neocons finance massacres in East Timor and Turkish Kurdistan (throughout the neocon Clinton Presidency) and continue to finance tyranny everywhere from Colombia to Kazakstan?

  7. Blair in The Times today. Nuff said.

  8. David Aaronovitch is for intervention which automatically makes all sensible people against it.

  9. It is to our infinite shame as a nation that we are still giving these people any kind of platform.

  10. Peter Hitchens has started reading some decent Americans which has revived his own moribund journalese. The success of his brother in the USA remains puzzling. William F Buckley could barely contain his laughter when interviewing him twenty five years ago. Now Buckley was himself guilty of flaunting ridiculously with the neo-cons, I know, but that CH became a star over there is a measure of their decline.

    I can never make up my mind whether the use of code words like "neo-con" is childish. How I miss Joe Sobran and our own Richard Ingram's of course.

  11. Richard Ingrams is alive and well, and still editing The Oldie.

    But yes, we could all do with the return of his Observer column or some other such platform for him.

  12. Well, like the Independent and Guardian, the Times only survives at all thanks to cross- subsidy since it long ago ceased to be profitable.

    I guess we have to thank Murdoch for at least keeping it afloat- but that means we have to put up with Aaronovitch, Kamm and that stupid Camilla Long woman.

    I can't imagine any of them being hired by a popular newspaper which actually has to reflect its readers views in order to make money.

  13. The boy Hitchens absolutely ripped apart the Henry Jackson Society chap in their Spectator podcast debate.

    You can now see that only a conservative who supports withdrawal from the EU can offer a consistent argument against this.

    Because the whole principle of a neocon foreign policy can only be opposed by those who believe-absolutely and without reserve- in the inviolability of national sovereignty (and thus also believes in it where Britain is concerned).

    That rules out Labour (who support the EU so can't claim to unreservedly support national sovereignty ) and it rules out almost all of the mainstream British Left.

    Only real conservatives like Peter can offer a truly principled, and unanswerable case against the neocons.

    Bravo to that man.