I’m amused by those who get themselves worked-up by things like this:
Blair ‘prayed to God’ over Iraq, the BBC’s answer to slow blog day. I first encountered the story last night, and thought “let a thousand blog posts bloom!”
As The Silent Hunter puts it: Man prays to God before taking difficult decisions – shock! Huggy also has the right idea.
What the article tells us is that:
- Tony Blair feels personal, not just professional, responsibility over the sending of British troops to fight in Iraq.
- Tony Blair wanted to make the right and moral decision, and felt that religious assurance (not being religious I can’t say I know how this is granted) would be the clincher.
- Bloggers inhabiting this comfortable BBC/Guardian world of ours have no comprehension of the motivation, or the modus operandi, of the millions of practising Christians who, today and throughout history, have invoked their God’s judgement on all matters major and trivial. It might be irrational (which does not, in itself, mean less rational than the alternative), but perhaps an inkling of understanding might give us a better idea of what makes the vast majority of the world’s population tick.
Of course a grasp of the perfectly good moral arguments for intervention would have made Blair’s appeal for his deity’s assistance completely unnecessary.
Meanwhile the inevitable result of the BBC alerting bored bloggers (not me – I was busily fixing an XML serialization issue) and rent-a-quote politicians, to provocative pieces like these, is self-righteous indignation, which is, after all, what the Iraq debate is about for most people.
P.S. Blogger’s been having problems for most of the afternoon – take this post as a sign that it’s still poorly, but no longer pathetically shouting from its bed for a Lemsip, TV Guide, and plate of biscuits.
Update: A couple of bloggers have attempt to tear a few strips off me for this post. I can see why they might want to do so but, having been through a few drafted replies of my own, I’ve come to the conclusion that neither has made a substantial point, and therefore I can’t see the point of weighing in with a dozen paragraphs. Frankly, anyone who has read the above and believes that I’m sticking two fingers up to the families of British army casualties needs their head examined. As for the criticisms of Blair in the light of his communications with his deity, the appropriate word for them is piffle. So, call me Mr. Nasty if you like, but if you think this post represents my bathing in the blood of the innocent, perhaps you should take a look at your target audience.
It is interesting to see how much respect you have for the families of soldiers maimed or killed in Blair’s divinely inspired, illegal war. By referring to their entirely understandable grief and anger over their tragic losses as “self-righteous indignation” you reflect the immorality of the government that caused those losses and of the Prime Minister who refuses to see the victims’ families or attend the funerals. Shame on you.
I haven’t criticised bereaved families, but I have directed criticism towards those who get their faces on TV by portraying the dead soldiers as Blair’s victims, who gave their lives either for nought, or as enemies of the British/Iraqi people. I’m prepared to say they gave their lives to liberate Iraqis from terror, and eliminate terrorists.
I put it to you that your definition of morality is a limited one, but feel free to retort now that we’ve got the tried and tested Iraq War Discussion pleasantries out the way.
Whose victims are they then if they are not the victims of the person who sent them to Iraq under false pretences? Have they really liberated Iraqis from terror? Are you seriously suggesting that things are so much better in Iraq now? Before the invasion there were no terrorists in Iraq nor was there danger of a civil war.
You suggest that my definition of morality is a limited one. Well, that may be, but it is a little disingenuous for supporters of New Labour to lecture on morality when that party is guilty of serial lying, support of torture, rendition, curtailing of civil liberties and unprecedented greed.
if they arent blairs victims who lied to send them to iraq. these comments labelling the families of dead soldiers are grotesquely offensive and they certainly betray the mindset of whoever runs this blog. i have a feeling your comments are going to be widely circulated in a couple of days and end up popping up in the mainstream media to wide-spread disgust.
No doubt the views I express betray my mindset, for what that’s worth, but you’ll notice – if you read the original article – that I didn’t ‘label’ the families of dead soldiers, though I would criticise anyone who uses their grief to make their own political points.
I would also do my best to slam those who reject the principle that a hundred lives might be worth sacrificing to save tens of millions from oppression, even if they are ‘our’ hundred.
Not inhabiting your little online bubble I’m able to see clearly that the mainstream media couldn’t give a fig about my opinions, and therefore I won’t be scared off.
Why you single out this blog, I don’t know.
Why join the army if you don’t want to fight in wars?
These were volunteer soldiers not conscripts.
Whatever the validity of Blair’s decision. Soldiers made their own decision to go to war.
I’m more concerned about the Iraqi civilians killed who didn’t have a choice.
The big question is; in the long term, have more Iraqi lives been saved or killed. The answer to that at the moment looks like the latter, time will tell.
“Why join the army if you don’t want to fight in wars?”
Well, Neil, any number of reasons, but your boneheaded assumption is further compounded by a fantastically inept conclusion – “Soldiers make their own decision to go to war”.
What?!?!?!
By no means could I call myself a pro-army (quite the reverse), but my understanding is that orders kind of flow down from above through the Command Structure within Military Heirarchies.
What are they teaching at Brighton Poly these days?
You are the one linking the words “self rightous indignation” to Reg Keys and Rose Gentle:
…to provocative pieces like these, is self-righteous indignation, which is, after all, what the Iraq debate is about for most people.
Attempting to justify it with the words:
I haven’t criticised bereaved families, but I have directed criticism towards those who get their faces on TV by portraying the dead soldiers as Blair’s victims, who gave their lives either for nought, or as enemies of the British/Iraqi people.
That might be why people believe that you are [see your link] criticising bereaved families, and sticking two fingers up to the families of British army casualties.
Hi there Bloggers4!
I have to say I admire your cojones for putting your head above the parapet like this. There can’t be many people left in the country willing to nail their colours to the past in the way that you do.
Which aspect of New Labour is it that appeals to you most? Is it the complicity-in-torture part, or the bribery-and-corruption side of it? Personally, I’m a big fan of the bribery-and-corruption thing myself. If government ministers taking £350,000 bungs won’t beat terrorism then I don’t know what will!
Overall though, the thing I like most about New Labour is the whole committing-an-act-of-treason-by-sending-our-troops-to-die-on-fraudulent-grounds thing. Those guys really know how to rock and roll! And if you’re a blogger for Labour, presumably that makes you complicit in treason to?! How cool must that feel?
When you sleep at night, do you see the dead eyes of all the British soldiers and Iraqi children you’ve helped to kill, staring back at you? I bet that’s a whole bundle of laughs. Is your mother proud of you?
Does the Labour party pay you to do this?
Nope, ringverse:
Meanwhile the inevitable result of the BBC alerting bored bloggers … and rent-a-quote politicians … is self-righteous indignation…
In fact I wasn’t specific about who was displaying the self-righteous indignation. However, if there were individuals who had crossed the line from grieving private citizens to become bandwagon-jumping media celebrities, then I don’t think I continue be accused of attacking vulnerable, upset people.
Of course we need to remember that many victims are far less visible and, frankly, don’t have the tabloid press behind them. I’m talking about countless victims of Saddam, victims of modern-day terrorists, and, indeed, Iraqi casualties of the conflict. I feel they should get a look in somewhere if we believe that all human lives are of equal value.
So you’re calling Reg Keys and Rose Gentle “individuals who had crossed the line from grieving private citizens to become bandwagon-jumping media celebrities”?
The anti war movement does not need lectures from you on the value of human life, Mr. Bloggers4U. If you really believe that the Iraq war was motivated by a concern for human rights, how do you explain Blair’s manifest failure to lift a finger to reign in (as oppose to giving money and guns to) the murderous criminal regimes in Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe, Congo, Cambodia, Burundi and Saudi Arabia? Do a little research, why don’t you?
In fact I wasn’t specific about who was displaying the self-righteous indignation.
Strange, the self righteous indignation link went straight to a the page it did…
I don’t understand why you try to climb back from the sugestion you are sticking two fingers up to the families of British army casualties, then continue to do so:
if there were individuals who had crossed the line from grieving private citizens to become bandwagon-jumping media celebrities, then I don’t think I continue be accused of attacking vulnerable, upset people.
I guess the only good grieving family is a Blair supporting grieving family – the implication being that if if you don’t toe the party line you cease to be upset or vulnerable, or just lose the right to speak out?
Sorry if I am banging on, but I find that contemptible.
Anon: “but my understanding is that orders kind of flow down from above through the Command Structure within Military Heirarchies.”
Have you heard of conciencious objectors? If a soldier didn’t want to fight in the Iraq War, they could refuse to go. They might have to spend a few months in military prison and the indignance of their colleagues, but nobody forces them to go, and indeed they didn’t need to join the army in the first place if they didn’t want to fight in wars.
Why do you always go on about British soldiers who had a choice to go to war, and hardly mention Iraqi civilians who didn’t have a choice?
neil h: It is the parents of dead soldiers that feel their children were mislead by Tony Blair that the Iraq war was to fight terrorism and to fight a possible attack against Britain. It has since become clear that neither of these things were true or likely at the time we went to war. Hence they were given false information and could not reason that they might want to object to being part of the war.
Also, you mention choice: do you think Iraqi civilians were given a choice as to whether the USA and Britain declared war on Iraq?
You don’t think we’re fighting terrorism? Those people setting off car bombs – are they just car thieves who got clumsy?
> to fight a possible attack against Britain. It has since become clear that neither of these things were true or likely at the time we went to war.
No, there was no plausible threat to us from Iraq, which is fine if you only care about Brits, but irrelevant if you have a problem with dictators.
> … could not reason that they might want to object to being part of the war.
Aha, if only the professionals of the volunteer army had been given a choice, they’d have decided to leave Saddam in place and take part in a few more exercises. Very plausible.
> do you think Iraqi civilians were given a choice as to whether the USA and Britain declared war on Iraq?
Good point – we should have asked Saddam to take a break from executing his own people to organise a referendum on whether the West was allowed to liberate them. I can see that working.
We are fighting terrorism *now*, but my point was about Blair shoring up support for the war not for regime change, but for defending Britain and attacking Terror.
Seeing as Iraqis have to pay the largest human cost of the war, which the medical journal the Lancet now estimates as a quarter of a million lives, many of us feel that the cost of removing such an evil dictator as Saddam Hussein was far too high, and carried out in an utterly irresponsible way.
Of course we could not have asked the Iraqi people then – but I’ll bet that there are at least some bereaved Iraqi families now that would say they would rather have taken their chances under Saddam’s stable, and torturous, regime than the current situation.
[...] response to this. I’ve decided to keep all comments that were added to that particular page, if only to stop [...]