Defections on the front line?
The ABC reports that the Liberal backbench is a bit concerned about Howard’s pre-emptive stance on Iraq:
A Federal Liberal backbencher has raised concerns about Australia joining a war against Iraq without UN backing.
The member for the Queensland seat of Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo says if war is declared, it would not be ideal for Iraq to be attacked without United Nations’ approval.
Mr Ciobo says it would set a bad example for war to be waged without the backing of the world community.
While the parliamentary debate on any Australian troop commitment will be token (Howard will send our boys to kill and die regardless), it will reveal just how willing our MPs are to ignore an overwhelming proportion of the Australian public. 30% are opposed to war in any circumstances, while a further 60% are opposed unless there is UN support.
The Coalition will probably have a tighter rein on its members (after all, it would be fatal for the PM to go to war without even the whole Government’s support), but they might express reservations. And I’ve been informed by a WA Labor Senator that some Labor MPs will cross the floor unless war is opposed outright.
Opposed to war in any circumstances? Even if the UN inspectors find armed chemical warheads? Nuclear Warheads? Aimed At Australia?
The sad thing is, there probably would still be people opposed to war in those circumstances.
Notice: now that the UN seems to be preparing to authorise the war, lefties are attacking the UN.
Yobbo, yes it’s amazing how the left attaches itself to the very worst of dictators. They have a long history of this but it’s become worse in recent times. They used only support communist dictators like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Castro. Nowadays any dictator qualifies as long as he’s anti-American!
Yobbo: what lefties? Where?
Ron: Yes, the very worst of dictators. Remember the leftist support for Pinochet, for example. And Franco. Your hypocrisy is showing.
There have been dictators that have been darlings of the left, and the right. For every left-wing dictator you throw at us, we can throw a righty right back at you (yes, I know you consider dictatorships to be entirely left-wing, but just assume for the moment that Pinochet wasn’t a model Socialist). It’s better to lay aside that dictator’s political beliefs, and just look at the very fact that he’s a dictator.
What difference does it make if a dictator is Fascist, or lies that he’s Communist? He’s still a dictator.
I’m not sure what Mark means by:
“or lies that he’s Communist? He’s still a dictator.”
Is he maintaining the fact that most of his favourite dictators were communists “is lies”?
No of course it doesn’t matter what religion a dictator is. That is my point. Stop supporting Saddam, Mark!
Yobbo — no, of course not. Ron, fuck off. Sorry, I tried to be polite but I couldn’t.
Ron, WRT “lies that he’s a Communist”, I was referring to people like Stalin — people who’ll royally fuck a country for their own personal benefit, then claim it was all okay because it’s a Communist idea.
No of course it doesn’t matter what religion a dictator is. That is my point.
Your point is that these days, lefties will support any dictator, so long as he’s pro-USA? Then why are many lefties in favour of deposing Saddam?
Now, let me tell you about my point — as you’ve obviously missed it. You accused lefties of ignoring the faults of many a dictator because they draped themselves in the Communist Manifesto. What of the rightists who’ve not only ignored the faults of many dictators — but, in fact, installed them — in order to prevent a country falling into the hands of Socialists? Or will you claim that Pinochet was a pinko?
The ultimate Clayton’s argument – “fuck off”. The argument you put when you haven’t got an argument!
Okay, Ron, you’ve dealt with Rob’s “fuck off” argument. Now deal with my “glass houses”.
Mark, I can’t be bothered playing your “my dictators are better than your dictators” little game. As a classic liberal, I’m for democracy and against dictatorships. Period.
Unfortunately lefties are equivocal at best on democracy. Bertholdt Brecht wrote the delightful poem “The Solution” which epitomized the left’s view of democracy:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
This tongue-in-cheek piece accurately portrays the left’s view of western democracies today. The people can’t be trusted to elect governments and we, the left, should do it for them because we know what’s best for them.
In other words, Rob, this Labor Senator (gee, I wonder which one :)) has stated that peace is not only a first resort but a last resort too, for some Labor MPs. That really is surprising. I always thought peace should be a first resort. One would hope that they reconsider their position somewhat and not simply bag it out. The other point is that whilst I understand Simon Crean’s point on troop deployment, such an action has been supported by Kofi Annan. If it works as a bargaining tool, then I have no problem with it.
Oh, God! Who cares about these little dictators? Yes, some lefties did want these people in power. So what? I still have found the occasional article justifying Pinochet on the grounds that Allende MAY have turned more Commie. All lefties ought not to hang their head in shame simply because some fellow-travellers had the nerve to call themselves “left”.
Steve, I just read your Pelican coverage of Guild elections. Interesting about the weblogs. Ever thought about starting one? It beats Active.org in terms of participating in intelligent debate. Let me know if you’re interested and I’ll help set you up.
Dictatorships spawn from all sorts of ideologies and admixtures of the strangest combinations. I don’t think, since we’re so into abstraction so much, that either the ‘left’ or the ‘right’ has a monopoly on dictatorships.
Dictatorships have been based as much on race (Hitler, Mugabe) and theology (we can probably span millenia of examples on this one) as on any economic policies. And of course the raw persual of power, which may describe many tin-pot dictators – whose ‘rule at all costs’ mentality borrows from a spectrum of ideologies, and often has litle philosophical basis, being based solely on the principle of ‘power for the sake of power’
Tyranny, comes in all shapes and sizes, what would be more constructive than I’ll raise you’re Hitler for a Stalin/I’ll raise you’re Pinochet for a Castro, would be to be vigilant against any such uprising.
And of course in end, I know of many neo-liberal economists who love the idea of dissolving the public, as their ideas are a tad unpopular (e.g. privatisation of Telstra). The Right can be just as guilty of telling the people what is in their best interests as any over-the-top revolutionary. And what do some of these economists blame when there is disagreement in the public, it’s those darn ignorant masses.
Either the Right has lousy communicators (a major part of the problem), or people are aware of major grievances to some of the mooted reforms, which the Right has either ignored or underplayed.
When the UN was being established, Labor Policy was that there should be NO veto power at all. Doc Evatt (whose complexities are well known) was the leader of a group of smaller powers who feared it could be abused.
Right or wrong, the veto is there. The issue of principle for ALL nations now is simple. If you believe the UN Security Council has made a wrong decision, and the consequences of accepting that decision are both major and wrong, do you maintain your right to do what you believe should be done.
I suspect nations might not want to answer that question; but they’d all be united in two things.
a) The’d hope they didn’t have to face it.
b) If they did have to face it, they’d do what they believed ought to be done.
In the meantime, fell free to continue hurling around “right” and “left” as if the word had much more than emotive content.