I see that Dr Heinz Kiosk has been given a guest slot.

And your proposed course of action is what, exactly?

How many left leaders have “we” murdered BTW?

It is odd that Gadaffi, who only just recently had been welcomed into the hallowed company of the ‘international community’, should be so ungratefully treated by those who only yesterday were praising him as a changed man and worthy of our respect.

I can only venture that the big powers were expecting him rapidly to fall, and they could then get in quick to cut a deal with his successor. How else explain the official endorsement of the type of popular radicalism that has unseated two good friends, Ben Ali and Mubarak, and is threatening to upturn the apple-cart in Bahrein and maybe even Saudi Arabia?

Gadaffi, however, is proving a harder nut, and is holding on. He could even win. What then? Will the big powers put him in quarantine, like they’ve done with Mugabe and did with Saddam Hussein? But Zimbabwe is a backwater and thus of little importance. The sanctions against Iraq were unable to unseat Saddam; this needed a war, one which threw up many deep problems which still remain unresolved.

If the Colonel holds on, he may well have to be rehabilitated if Libya with its oil is to be reintegrated into the world economy and polity. This is not a risk-free course, but it has been done before, not least with Gadaffi himself, and could be done again. (And of course Saif Gadaffi’s PhD will be recognised as kosher, with any similarities between its text and that available on the Internet being entirely coincidental and not evidence of plagiarism.) It will also give an excuse for the Western powers to stop encouraging the dangerous matter of popular unrest in the Middle East, all more necessary for the big powers now that its consequences are becoming clear in the Persian Gulf.

I certainly agree that we should speak out against repression in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. But the OP is, at best, oversimplifying in equating Gaddafi with Noriega or Somoza. The facts are rather different. Whatever hopes the west might have had for Gaddafi when he first overthrew the king, he quickly made clear that he stood for a programme of Arab nationalism, nationalisation and anti-colonialism (to the extent of supporting revolutionary movements abroad, including the IRA, the ANC, the Baader-Meinhof gang in West Germany and so on). He was no more the west’s man (regardless of whether he had been originally, for which there’s relatively little evidence) than Arbenz or Allende. Yes, Arbenz and Allende were much better democrats than the dictator Gaddafi – but western elites hated them for the same reasons (plus a few extra reasons in the case of Gaddafi’s interventions in foreign states), nothing to do with democracy or dictatorship. The US tried to kill Gaddafi in the 80s.

In recent years Gaddafi, wanting to escape from sanctions and also perhaps fearful of US invasion in the changed climate post-9/11, made his peace with the west and agreed to western investment, liberalisation of the economy and so on. Of course, he didn’t democratise, since that isn’t something the west cares about.

Now that Gaddafi’s position is threatened, the west sides with the rebels. Two reasons. First, the level of violence he’s using is very embarrassing to them, even though they always knew his regime was brutal and backed it regardless. Secondly, they hope that a new regime in Libya will be even more malleable to capitalist interests than his latterly was.

Contrary to the OP’s apparent implication that the west is being hypocritical by not intervening in Libya, Cameron and Sarkozy have both made very clear that they are hawks on Libya. Wiser counsel has so far prevailed in Germany and the US, but we don’t know for how long. The hypocrisy is in the contrasting responses: the willingness to support the Saudis; the willingness to back Mubarak until he got into such serious trouble that he clearly wouldn’t survive in power; the willingness to intervene in Libya in the hope of further strengthening the west’s hand there.

Maybe someone needs to do a proper study of the grammar of the usage of the liberal ‘we’ as it applies to the internet age.

Why is a 1970s CIA officer, in acting collaboration with local Chileans, ‘we’. Why is a Bahranian liberal protester, or Iranian intelligence analyst, not-we?

There was a time, back in the 1970s, when you could assume the first might potentially read your words, and the second two definitely wouldn’t. That is, as anyone who has been following recent events can see, no longer true.

And not just because the first is likely dead of old age by now…

Not forgetting Guatamala, on which James Lusher is well worth reading in the new issue of Lobster.

Still, it’s one thing to point out that states act in their own self-interest. What’s important is to try and work out what decisions that self-interest will inspire. Moralising about realism is valuable sometimes but doesn’t achieve a lot.

Maybe someone needs to do a proper study of the grammar of the usage of the liberal ‘we’ as it applies to the internet age.

Why is a 1970s CIA officer, in acting collaboration with local Chileans, ‘we’. Why is a Bahranian liberal protester, or Iranian intelligence analyst, not-we?

Good point. “We” are not our states much more than we’re our sports teams.

“How ironic if Iran comes to be seen as the champion of democracy while the West, greedy above all else for oil, sides with ruling elites who care nothing at all for democracy.”

Uh-huh… is this the same Iran busy crushing its own democratic opposition, which executes homosexuals, denies rights to minorities, funds terrorism, is led by a holocaust denying wing nut… or the Iran which has territirial claims in the Gulf which makes the locals kind of nervous?

Pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain (or for that matter Saudi, the Emirates, Oman or Yemen) aren’t stupid enough to believe that the Iranians are about to help them throw off their current rulers and replace them with liberal democracy….. they would soon find themselves as free as their Iranian co-religionists.

We shouldn’t be interfering in any middle Eastern nation’s affairs.

Let the UN send humanitarian aid to the suffering victims but let’s not get involved with their military.

How ironic if Iran comes to be seen as the champion of democracy…

Wouldn’t it first have to become a democracy?

‘How ironic if Iran comes to be seen as the champion of democracy while the West, greedy above all else for oil, sides with ruling elites who care nothing at all for democracy.’

Seems unlikely that people will view Iran as the champion of democracy, especially as its governed by a fascistic religious clergy. By people I mean everyone apart from the self-hating Galloway Left and Islamists of course.

I presume the author is equally animated about Iran’s documented military interventions in Afghanistan and Gaza?

Some of you are going to have to clarify the current non-interventionist position on all this. As far as I can tell:

- It was terrible to have diplomatic and trade relations with Gadaffi
- Its terrible to actually do something to stop Gadaffi.

- Its terrible to have diplomatic and trade relations with Bahrain

So does the author support intervention against the Saudi troops in Bahrain? A NFZ perhaps? Remember this deployment was taken without the US being informed, it has nothing to do with US policy. My guess the position will be:

- Its terrible to do anything to stop Saudi and Bahrain.

In other words, the current non-interventionist position is to have absolutely no position at all.

You have absolute no right to criticse US policy on Bahrain when you can’t even bring yourself to support a NFZ against Gaddafi.

I don’t actually think it makes much sense to categorise these people on a left to right political spectrum. Where should we place Gaddafi on the spectrum when he self-identifies as a socialist? His full job title.

Muammar Gaddafi, Brotherly Leader and Guide of the First of September Revolution of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

And more modestly, King of Kings of Africa.

Listen, hypocrisy in foreign affairs is part of the English way of life.

People like you would let blacks on Midsomer Murders.

Hello all,

I agree that my use of ‘we’ was less than clear. Sorry about that. But for the person who said ‘we’ are not our governments any more than we are our football teams, I disagree. In a democracy I feel we very much are our governments, even those we did not vote for and dislike. because ‘we’, unlike those who live under a dictatorship, do have the means to bring our governments to heel. Not easy to do but possible in a way it is not in a dictatorship.

As for Iran, I do understand that Iran is not a democratic country and have no illusions about its repressive internal politics, religious intollerance or international pretensions. That was why I said it would be ironic.

As for how many leaders ‘we’, by which I presume you mean we in the UK, have overthrown – well we were involved with the removal of Mossadeq, had people in Chile (strangely on both sides) and hired out elements of the SAS around the Americas when asked.

We are just a great deal better at keeping secrets than the cousins. The cousins pay, others do the nasty, dirty work. They get deniability. we and others got brownie points.

I agree that Gaddafi was not as pliable as we might have wished. But Italy and Spain have been happy to deal with him for decades and are notably quiet about criticising him even now, because through all his anti western tirades and terrorist funding he has had close and profitable ties with them. And we, the UK, have bust a gut to get close to him in order to get our share of the oil and gas.

Whatever our governments may say, and indeed whatever Gaddafi may say, Oil companies are often a shadow foreign office, their intersts a shadow foreign policy. Often a better funded one and certainly one less bothered with legal or moral oversight.

Who supports and who opposes Gaddafi, even now, is hugely influenced by who has what oil and gas interests and where they are in the country. Our interests lie in rebel held territory. Italy and Spain”s in the West, controlled by Gaddafi. Russia and China do not want intervention but for different reasons. Russian because without Libyan gas, Russia has even more of a monopoly than before. And China because she was absent when all the exploration deals were struck and awarded to Shell, BP, Oxy and Exxon and would love to see theose unravel and open the bidding to Chinese intersts.

As you say it is a complex situation.

My point was a simple one. I dislike the West’s sham concern with democracy when it suits and total disregard otherwise.

What do I suggest? Stop financially supporting and selling arms to regimes that are clearly repressive, and violent. Is that too simple?

@Richard P.

Well said. But Gadafi having his thugs rape the rebels they capture and then leaving their bodies lying in the streets with their hands and feet cut off, bulldozing corpses out of cemeteries as a terror tactic, and long range artillery shelling of families in their homes is also rather more than we’ve seen from our al-Saud and al-Khalifa allies.

It seems a real shame that something as simple as attacking Gadafi’s artillery battalions, an action as simple and as urgently needed as its equivalent was in Bosnia, seems to be so difficult to clear in the councils of the West. That would suggest that, unlike Serbia, Gadafi’s Libya was not in the Pentagon’s long-term strategic sights.

I also wonder how much of Germany’s awkward squad position is just down to the dreadful Westerwelle throwing a hissy fit about being sidelined, or simply seeking to bolster the domestic PR image he cares about so much.

As I recall, Stalin was officially only the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Ho hum.

“How ironic if Iran comes to be seen as the champion of democracy while the West, greedy above all else for oil, sides with ruling elites who care nothing at all for democracy.”

Iran’s support for democracy in Bahrain is transparently hypocritical. They will not allow their own people a free choice because the regime would lose. They want the people of Bahrain to vote because they think One man, one vote, one time, would bring a fellow Islamist government to power. Not because they like democracy.

“And we do not have much of a record of supporting democracy.”

This is childish self-loathing. In the real world, the present period of first British and then American domination has come with the growth of democracy across the world. It is our political system, we invented it, we have exported it. Without the English speaking world there would be no democracy in most of the world. It is precisely because America is so powerful that other countries have had to listen to it and allow free votes. That is why America’s enemies going back to about 1812 have not been or supported democracies. As the record goes, America’s record is pretty hard core, seriously fucking amazing.

“It always amazes me how quick we in the West are, to assassinate left leaning leaders of other countries (the CIA murdered Allende) and install and support murdering right wing dictators.”

The CIA did not murder Allende. The Chilean Army acted for their own reasons. At most the CIA might have been aware of it. But he would have been thrown out in a coup anyway. Probably murdered too.

“Saddam Hussein was one of ours”

No he was not. He ran a pro-Soviet regime from before he took power.

“as was/is (we just can’t make up our minds) Gaddafi”

This is childish. Gaddafi came to power and immediately worked to undermine Western interests. He supported every enemy of freedom and democracy in the world from the PIRA to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines.

“as was Noriega in Panama, and Somoza in Nicaragua.”

That is true. Although what came next in Nicaragua shows the Americans were right to support Somoza. The support for dictators in the 1970s and 1980s was due to the growth of Communist terrorism and was the lesser of two evils. Rightly so.

“And of course presidents of life are our favourites being democratic (presidents!) and absolute rulers (for life) like Mubarak in Egypt.”

When Reagan came to power he told the governments of Latin America they had to hold free and fair elections. They did. Latin America has been democratic ever since. We did not put Mubarak in power. Nasser came to power on an explicitly anti-Western platform and once again he supported terrorism against the West and every enemy of democracy in the world. Not our friends. Mubarak just likes money.

“We are oh so willing to murder left leaders who nationalize our interests or won’t negotiate to give us what we want, but oh so scrupulous when it comes to even offering a hankie to mop up the blood when it is Gaddafi murdering his people.”

Gaddafi is a left wing leader who nationalised the oil. And did not give us what we wanted. And he was and is a friend of much of the left. He gave Trots enough money. Supported all the right causes. How many left wing leaders have “we” murdered precisely?

“We might be accused of double standards but that would be to dignify us with having any standards at all.”

This sounds like something from a particularly dire Sixth Form political debate. Why is it on LC?

14. david malone – “As for Iran, I do understand that Iran is not a democratic country and have no illusions about its repressive internal politics, religious intollerance or international pretensions. That was why I said it would be ironic.”

But it seems you have no sense of irony when it comes to their crocodile tears for Bahraini democracy. Interesting.

“As for how many leaders ‘we’, by which I presume you mean we in the UK, have overthrown – well we were involved with the removal of Mossadeq, had people in Chile (strangely on both sides) and hired out elements of the SAS around the Americas when asked.”

You mean we had people in Iran who talked to other people in Iran and even gave them some money. As they removed Mossadegh for their own reasons, at their own time, using their own resources? Sure.

“We are just a great deal better at keeping secrets than the cousins. The cousins pay, others do the nasty, dirty work. They get deniability. we and others got brownie points.”

So in other words you have no evidence of British involvement in these acts whatsoever? Fine. But in the meantime impressionable young men read these sorts of screeds. We, if I can use the term, tend not to like Hate Speech precisely because we know what effect it can have on other people, especially angry young men. But that does not stop you. You think it is fair and reasonable to say that on the basis of no evidence whatsoever you have encouraged terrorism against Britain both foreign and domestic? If not, can you please explain why not.

“I agree that Gaddafi was not as pliable as we might have wished.”

I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland and any number of other victims of terrorism would agree with you. If you knew this why did you ignore the fact your claims were crap?

“But Italy and Spain have been happy to deal with him for decades and are notably quiet about criticising him even now”

Then how about you criticise the governments of Italy and Spain?

“Whatever our governments may say, and indeed whatever Gaddafi may say, Oil companies are often a shadow foreign office, their intersts a shadow foreign policy.”

And you know this because ….. ?

“My point was a simple one. I dislike the West’s sham concern with democracy when it suits and total disregard otherwise.”

Wow. Grown up foreign policy is too unpleasant for you? What a shame. What is the alternative? Against what standard are you judging us? Comparing us with which country precisely? Spain? China? Iran? Well you did that. And found us wanting.

“What do I suggest? Stop financially supporting and selling arms to regimes that are clearly repressive, and violent. Is that too simple?”

We have done that already. We don’t sell weapons to violent and repressive regimes. Although I notice your total silence about those governments that do. The problem comes if we want to encourage a regime to move in the direction of democracy. Suppose Saddam had agreed to full UN inspections and real co-operation. You would have claimed that we should not have slacked off sanctions one little bit because he was still a bad man? If not, why was it wrong in Libya? Are you insisting that we should have a Manichaean foreign policy that divides the world into good guys and bad guys, without making a distinction between bad guys and worse guys? Without trying to work out if we will make the situation worse?

16. Bob B – “As I recall, Stalin was officially only the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.”

But he became President in 1940. For a short while. On the other hand, for a time, Deng Xiaoping’s only title was President of the Chinese Bridge Federation. He did like his card games.

As for an ethical foreign policy, the Cardinal Keith O’Brien is reported as having accused William Hague, the foreign secretary, of doubling overseas aid to Pakistan to more than £445 million without demanding religious freedom for Christians and other religious minorities, such as Shia Muslims.

“To increase aid to the Pakistan government when religious freedom is not upheld and those who speak up for religious freedom are gunned down is tantamount to an anti-Christian foreign policy.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8382903/William-Hague-accused-of-anti-Christian-foreign-policy.html

What I cannot understand is why the Cardinal has overlooked the Sermon on the Mount – an extraordinary lapse for a man in his position:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5]
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/KJB/pce.pdf

20. Bob B – “As for an ethical foreign policy, the Cardinal Keith O’Brien is reported as having accused William Hague, the foreign secretary, of doubling overseas aid to Pakistan to more than £445 million without demanding religious freedom for Christians and other religious minorities, such as Shia Muslims.”

So we should stop feeding the poor in any country which has blasphemy laws? You seriously think this? We are fighting a war. You think we ought to hold all aid to our allies if they do not have a perfect record on human rights? Do you think this means that in World War Two we should have refused to send aid to the Soviet Union or that we should have refused aid from the United States? After all, they still had segregation.

“What I cannot understand is why the Cardinal has overlooked the Sermon on the Mount – an extraordinary lapse for a man in his position:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

I am confused. You’re saying that the correct response to 7-7 was to point out the excellent opportunities availing themselves at the near by Embankment Tube Station?

“44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5]”

Ahh. I see. An ethical foreign policy means not giving aid to our allies, sorry Stalin, but to our enemies instead! Well at the risk of breaking Goodwin’s law, someone did ask Goering for Spitfires. Think how warm and morally righteous we could feel.

Foreign policy is hard. It requires tough choices. Luckily as a major power we have been able to indulge the weak minded for generations. Alas though, that period is coming to an end. If we want to survive, and there is a question about that, we will have to play in the Big Boy’s game like grown ups. I suggest we start soon.

@21:

I’ve never concealed a personal scepticism about the practicalities of embodying the aspirational prescriptions of the Sermon on the Mount in the precepts of Britain’s foreign policy. Frankly, I think that we will have to make do with Palmerston:

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston

With all the talk about the “special relationship” between Britain and America, we are apt to forget that the White House is painted white to cover up the burn marks left from when a British expeditionary force set fire to the public buildings in Washington during the war of 1812:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

If we really need to apply a universal guiding principle, IMO Confucius is a better guide than the equivalent Christian precept:

Tzu-kung asked, “Is there one word which can serve as the guiding principle for conduct throughout life?” Confucius said, “It is the word altruism (shu). Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” Confucius: Analects 15:23
http://www.rjbaker.com/THE%20ANALECTS.pdf

22. Bob B – “Frankly, I think that we will have to make do with Palmerston:”

Which would require acknowledging we have an interest in a stable Middle East. Preferably democratic, but stable nonetheless. And hence in the survival of the Bahrani monarchy. No? Which we should therefore be arming.

“If we really need to apply a universal guiding principle, IMO Confucius is a better guide than the equivalent Christian precept:”

Yeah. Unfortunately the world is not like that and people are going to be doing a lot more Doing Unto Us the sort of things that we will not like. We have thrown away every advantage we ever had because it was, like, so mean and people didn’t like us. But having withdrawn from our outer defensive lines, we will now be fighting much closer to home. I don’t see what is wrong with a little sensible working, while we can, to make the world more friendly. Which would mean supporting democracy where it has a reasonable chance of success. Or supporting the overthrow of people like Gaddafi and Saddam.

Hello So Much For Subtlety,

I have to say, though it might be possible that you are perfectly reasonable and pleasant in person, in print you seem swollen with pomposity and suffer from a nasty case of keyboard rage. You should see someone about the latter and just try to restrain the former.

You manage, in your apoplectic fury, to accuse me of having, “…encouraged terrorism against Britain both foreign and domestic…” Wow. Do you always make such serious an defamatory accusations?

Apart from being rude and unfounded it is also just embarassing. What are you so afraid of thast you have to descend to playground shouting? It is possible to disagree with someone,even forcefully but still manage to be both civil and open to actual debate rather than rude name calling. You should try it.

I feel you live in a rather sealed off, and self satisfied world of your own devising. The certainty with which you proclaim, “We don’t sell weapons to violent and repressive regimes.” is a little painful.

But not a patch on what you offerd poor old Bob B when you crafted ths wonderful piece.

“Foreign policy is hard. It requires tough choices. Luckily as a major power we have been able to indulge the weak minded for generations. Alas though, that period is coming to an end. If we want to survive, and there is a question about that, we will have to play in the Big Boy’s game like grown ups.”

If cliche were rated like alchohol content then this would be a killer dose. This is a script for a really bad B-movie. I cringed for you when I read it but felt annoyed enough with your bullying blow-hard righteousness that I still thought I’d put in quotes.

Let’s invade China – Liberty now!!! What’s that nurse…..

“If cliche were rated like alchohol content then this would be a killer dose”

Pot calling kettle!

24. david malone – “I have to say, though it might be possible that you are perfectly reasonable and pleasant in person, in print you seem swollen with pomposity and suffer from a nasty case of keyboard rage. You should see someone about the latter and just try to restrain the former.”

If you do not see what moral, intellectual and logical flaws your argument has I feel sorry but not responsible.

“You manage, in your apoplectic fury, to accuse me of having, “…encouraged terrorism against Britain both foreign and domestic…” Wow. Do you always make such serious an defamatory accusations?”

Only when necessary. Surely we can see what your outrageous smears, if not open lies, are going to do can’t you? Surely you do not need me to explain to you exactly what an incitement to hatred is? A fact-free incitement to hate as well I notice. How can you disclaim responsibility? You have as much evidence for your claims as I do that the Jews killed Christ. Yet you proclaim we all have blood on our hands. Well, how does history tell us that works out? If you tell young men in countries like Iran, with its long history of support for anti-Western terrorism and suicide bombing, that Britain is to blame for their history going the wrong way – despite no evidence whatsoever for these claims – what do you think they likely response is? You think every single one of those young men is going to stick to civil discourse? Some words hurt feelings, and some actions break bones. But those that break bones do so because of those words.

“Apart from being rude and unfounded it is also just embarassing. What are you so afraid of thast you have to descend to playground shouting? It is possible to disagree with someone,even forcefully but still manage to be both civil and open to actual debate rather than rude name calling. You should try it.”

I am not name calling. And if you had an argument that required logical rebuttal I would attempt a logical rebuttal. But an argument that claims Britain is to blame, collectively, for virtually everything wrong in the Middle East and Latin America despite there being no evidence whatsoever of this – a fact you admit – is simply not grounded in reality well enough to rebut logically. I was perfectly civil.

“The certainty with which you proclaim, “We don’t sell weapons to violent and repressive regimes.” is a little painful.”

And yet it is true.

“If cliche were rated like alchohol content then this would be a killer dose.”

That just means you have not understood it.

@23: “Or supporting the overthrow of people like Gaddafi and Saddam.”

As a major trading nation – the second largest global exporter of services after America – and a major exporter of investment capital, Britain has a strong vested interest in supporting the rule of international law, which means refraining from unilateral regime changing interventions abroad without the sanction of the UN Security Council. Remember that precept of Confucius: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” Analects 15:23

Besides, with that record budget deficit requiring unprecedented efficiency savings from the NHS and the Police, if Boy George, the chancellor, not the other one, is to be believed, we aren’t in any position to afford those foreign interventions until the deficit has been paid down.

Simple as that.

” Cardinal Keith O’Brien is reported as having accused William Hague, the foreign secretary, of doubling overseas aid to Pakistan to more than £445 million without demanding religious freedom for Christians and other religious minorities, such as Shia Muslims.

“To increase aid to the Pakistan government when religious freedom is not upheld and those who speak up for religious freedom are gunned down is tantamount to an anti-Christian foreign policy.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8382903/William-Hague-accused-of-anti-Christian-foreign-policy.html

Well, good on yer, Keef, Not that I agree with this foreign policy judgement, but hey, it’s great to see a cleric actually standing up for christianity at last, rather than just for church authority and doctrine,

SoMuchForSubtelety,

British involvement in toppling Mossadegh is such a well established fact that it seems bizarre to ask for evidence. It’s a bit like asking for proof that Scott wasn’t first to the South Pole.

There are two major accounts, by participating senior intelligence officers, one MI6, one CIA, that testify to what happened. 1. C. M. Woodhouse, Something Ventured,(Granada, London, 1982); Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup, (McGraw Hill, London 1979).

Details are available online in an extract from Curtis’ excellent book on British foreign policy and its misdeeds since 1945 http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm.

To this day, Iranians are obsessed with the idea that *everything* that happens in Iran is due to the manipulations of the Brits. Some poor little blog isn’t going to make a difference. It’s such a national trope, they even write comic books about it. Google for ‘Uncle Napoleon’.

@Bob B

There is no such thing as a humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian crisis provides the public consent window of opportunity for the military pursuit of national interests. That is what’s going on Libya. It doesn’t mean that intervention against NATO members’ designated targets cannot be a good thing. As somebody here was bizarrely embarassed to say, consequentialism, not deontology.

Bombing the Serb artillery in Bosnia was very overdue and led straight to Dayton. A few Rafales and Typhoons airstriking Gadafi’s artillery battalions will save many lives, cause mass desertions in his ranks, and probably spare the population the hideous house-to-house revenge he has planned.

Gadafi is a busted flush. All the big tribes that once supported him, notably the Warfalla and the Makariba, have gone over to the other side. His tribal alliance is irremediably shot, so all he has to offer, longer term is rule by terror and constant civil war. People left in the streets with their hands and feet cut off, that sort of thing. He has better materiel, some elite units, aircraft and cash to pay mercenaries: not a recipe for stable government.

Our national interest, in the form of stable oil prices, assured supply to Germany, Spain and Italy, refinery and exploration contracts for EU rather than Chinese firms demands his replacement. Anybody who has been following what has been happening in Libya would add that human sympathy demands it too.

“Stop financially supporting and selling arms to regimes that are clearly repressive, and violent. Is that too simple?”

What would you say to the view that the reason Egypt didn’t turn into a bloodbath was because the generals had a long established relationship with the west, used western arms and were trained there, and thus wanted to keep this relationship?

“it’s great to see a cleric actually standing up for christianity at last, rather than just for church authority and doctrine,”

IMO there’s not much worthwhile remaining from Christianity as a faith if the Sermon on the Mount is stripped away – apart from the Church of Rome with all its wealth and so many paedophile priests, of course:

“Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that “the Devil is at work inside the Vatican”, according to the Holy See’s chief exorcist.

“Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican’s chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as ‘cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon’.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece

“A Channel 4 News investigation reveals that more than half of the Catholic priests convicted for child abuse and sentenced to more than a year in prison, in England and Wales since 2001, remain in the priesthood – with some still receiving financial support from the Church and living in church houses.”
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/catholic+church+abuse+paedophile+priests+remain+in+catholic+church/3767477.html

hi Galen…when do we send in the task force? isn’t that what the UK exist to do, sort out the world’s problems?

@33 diogenes

“hi Galen…when do we send in the task force? isn’t that what the UK exist to do, sort out the world’s problems?”

What a fatuous comment. The UK isn’t in a position to send in a task force, thanks to the intellectual pygmies in the Coalition who gutted our capabilities so effectively in the latest Strategic (sic) Defence Review.

The most that we are likely to contribute is some aircraft to enforce a NFZ, and perhaps some C3 back up. It’s a pity we don’t still have carrier based Harrier aircraft….so well done Coalition for that smart move!

Are you suggesting the UK has no role to play in helping to sort out the world’s problems? Perhaps you are one of those who would prefer us to sit around on our hands and see people butchered when we can (and should) prevent it?

Don’t tell me, you feel that since we don’t (and can’t) over-turn every nasty dictator, then we shouldn’t try and do it all, under any circumstances? From earlier posts, I seem to recall you disapproved of intervention in Bosnia and Kossovo too.

Would you disaaprove of moves to intervene in Bahrain too?

Either you feel that there are no circumstances in which anyone should intervene anywhere, or you think it can and should be done. In the latter case, who exactly do you think is going to do it?