Saturday, April 24, 2010
Thursday, June 14, 2007
FALKLANDS VICTORY AT 25
Well done!
Also, read this address by Thatcher and this article from one of the more prominent veterans. And don't forget to visit here:
Well done!
Also, read this address by Thatcher and this article from one of the more prominent veterans. And don't forget to visit here:
Labels: defence, history, politics
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
ON THIS DAY IN
I'm not sure, but I seem to remember the troops are Canadian, a country whose contribution to the battle for liberty was (and is!) often overlooked.
Friday, May 11, 2007
THANK YOU FALKLAND VETS
I know I'm posting this fairly randomly as today is no specific anniversary of the Falklands War that was on 25 years ago - just to point you to the British Legion's Falklands site.
I know I'm posting this fairly randomly as today is no specific anniversary of the Falklands War that was on 25 years ago - just to point you to the British Legion's Falklands site.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Saturday, July 22, 2006
QUOTE OF THE DAY
Bumped into this randomly but it made me smile nonetheless:
Bumped into this randomly but it made me smile nonetheless:
And socialism, like history, repeats itself: the first time as genocide, the second time as therapy.
John O'Sullivan
Labels: history, politics, quote
Monday, May 08, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
In the UK
Friday, November 11, 2005
REMEMBER . . .
. . . .the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month . . .
. . . .the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month . . .
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
JUST A REMINDER . . .
It's Veterans Awareness Week, time to say thanks for victory.
Unfortunately I can't quite let it go without a grumble, why did they have to call it "awareness" week? Simply calling it Veterans Week would have been better, by avoiding the language of faddish psycho-babble.
It's Veterans Awareness Week, time to say thanks for victory.
Unfortunately I can't quite let it go without a grumble, why did they have to call it "awareness" week? Simply calling it Veterans Week would have been better, by avoiding the language of faddish psycho-babble.
Labels: defence, history, nation
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
GITMO WORSE THAN GULAG
There’s been some eyebrows raised because of a senior German diplomat’s observation on the preferability of the Gulag to Camp X-ray. And actually, he’s right. Not in regards to the prisoners, but in regards to the international image of those running the facilities. The Gulag was never used as effectively to tarnish the Soviet Union, Stalin and communism as the Gitmo detention facilities are used to slander the US. So, yes, from that perspective, Gitmo is worse. I’ve got a feeling though, that’s not how he meant it . . .
There’s been some eyebrows raised because of a senior German diplomat’s observation on the preferability of the Gulag to Camp X-ray. And actually, he’s right. Not in regards to the prisoners, but in regards to the international image of those running the facilities. The Gulag was never used as effectively to tarnish the Soviet Union, Stalin and communism as the Gitmo detention facilities are used to slander the US. So, yes, from that perspective, Gitmo is worse. I’ve got a feeling though, that’s not how he meant it . . .
Labels: Germany, history, politics, terrorism, USA
Friday, June 03, 2005
EURO-INTREGRATION AS SOLUTION TO PAST EVILS
Yep, it’s fairly happy times for us Eurosceptics at the moment which doesn’t happen very often it must be said. And thanks to the Dutch for making my week. No reason to go slack however.
The other day on the telly I saw a broadcast from the Dutch yes-campaign, which wasn’t in the end screened in the Netherlands due to protests. Well deserved protests. It suggested that to prevent repeats of the Holocaust, the Srebrenica massacre and the Madrid train bombings it was necessary to vote yes to the silly treaty on the Euro-constitution. The invocation of this sort of thing may be becoming routine and its moral stupidity is rather too obvious to point out again.
But is there perhaps some other point in these crass comparisons? Auschwitz, Srebrenica, Madrid? Well what they all have in common is that they were directly or indirectly caused by supra-nationalism. The Nazis were animated to the Holocaust by racism which by definition is not restricted to borders and they were quite eager to kill the “undesireables”not just in Germany but all over their pan-European polity. The Madrid bombers were motivated by some form of extremist Islamism, which again is not about territory or borders but instead dedicated to a universal idea. Ok, so Srebrenica doesn’t quite fit the bill so far as the perpetrators were motivated by a very narrow hatred and territorial ambitions. But the violence that erupted there was a partial consequence of the creation of a state which did not have a nation as a foundation on which to rest. Yugoslavia was probably doomed to fail and it is just the circumstance of creating artifical borders that made possible the wars of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
All these, pan-Yugoslavism, Islamism and Nazism are supra-national ideas.
So is Eurofederalism.
Yep, it’s fairly happy times for us Eurosceptics at the moment which doesn’t happen very often it must be said. And thanks to the Dutch for making my week. No reason to go slack however.
The other day on the telly I saw a broadcast from the Dutch yes-campaign, which wasn’t in the end screened in the Netherlands due to protests. Well deserved protests. It suggested that to prevent repeats of the Holocaust, the Srebrenica massacre and the Madrid train bombings it was necessary to vote yes to the silly treaty on the Euro-constitution. The invocation of this sort of thing may be becoming routine and its moral stupidity is rather too obvious to point out again.
But is there perhaps some other point in these crass comparisons? Auschwitz, Srebrenica, Madrid? Well what they all have in common is that they were directly or indirectly caused by supra-nationalism. The Nazis were animated to the Holocaust by racism which by definition is not restricted to borders and they were quite eager to kill the “undesireables”not just in Germany but all over their pan-European polity. The Madrid bombers were motivated by some form of extremist Islamism, which again is not about territory or borders but instead dedicated to a universal idea. Ok, so Srebrenica doesn’t quite fit the bill so far as the perpetrators were motivated by a very narrow hatred and territorial ambitions. But the violence that erupted there was a partial consequence of the creation of a state which did not have a nation as a foundation on which to rest. Yugoslavia was probably doomed to fail and it is just the circumstance of creating artifical borders that made possible the wars of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
All these, pan-Yugoslavism, Islamism and Nazism are supra-national ideas.
So is Eurofederalism.
Monday, May 09, 2005
EURO-SCUMBAG OF THE DAY
According to EU-Commissar Margot Wallstrom :
According to EU-Commissar Margot Wallstrom :
Vote for EU constitution or risk new Holocaust
I report you decide . . . to throw up or so.
Honestly what is this? The next level of Holocaust denial? Did the Nazis really only try to maintain national sovereignty as an essential ingredient to liberal democracy? I recall a rather different history.
Outrageous and ridiculous in one.
I am a Euroscpetic and this is due to concerns about the erosion of democratic accountability, the shaky foundations on which the EU is being built, the direction it is taking, etc. I am not motivated by xenophobia and often find some of it that is present in the culture strongly discomforting. And -to use a cliché- some of my best friends are Europeans, my wife in spe is foreign and I think European integration is a great idea, just that it’s gone and is going too far. If that makes me a Nazi gunning for another Shoa, I should gladly volunteer for the position gas chamber operator.
Crass? This just underlines the stupidity and offensiveness of Wallstrom’s’s comments.
It also shows that the EU-boosters are starting to look a little desperate if the only counter to the many Eurosceptical arguments consists in the lowest-level name calling and impugning the motives of critics, rather than any substantive counter-arguments. (And while we’re at it, there’s an argument to be made that the EU as such increases racism.)
She should be forced to apologise for using such inflammatory rethoric. Peter Tapsel was strongly hounded for his inappropriate use of Hitler-comparison in regards to the EU and that must equally be the case for the other side of the argument. But I’m not holding my breath.
Honestly what is this? The next level of Holocaust denial? Did the Nazis really only try to maintain national sovereignty as an essential ingredient to liberal democracy? I recall a rather different history.
Outrageous and ridiculous in one.
I am a Euroscpetic and this is due to concerns about the erosion of democratic accountability, the shaky foundations on which the EU is being built, the direction it is taking, etc. I am not motivated by xenophobia and often find some of it that is present in the culture strongly discomforting. And -to use a cliché- some of my best friends are Europeans, my wife in spe is foreign and I think European integration is a great idea, just that it’s gone and is going too far. If that makes me a Nazi gunning for another Shoa, I should gladly volunteer for the position gas chamber operator.
Crass? This just underlines the stupidity and offensiveness of Wallstrom’s’s comments.
It also shows that the EU-boosters are starting to look a little desperate if the only counter to the many Eurosceptical arguments consists in the lowest-level name calling and impugning the motives of critics, rather than any substantive counter-arguments. (And while we’re at it, there’s an argument to be made that the EU as such increases racism.)
She should be forced to apologise for using such inflammatory rethoric. Peter Tapsel was strongly hounded for his inappropriate use of Hitler-comparison in regards to the EU and that must equally be the case for the other side of the argument. But I’m not holding my breath.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
RECOGNIZING GENOCIDE
I just thought I’d do my bit by flagging this story up:
I just thought I’d do my bit by flagging this story up:
TURKEY WINS REMOVAL OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE FROM GERMAN SCHOOLS
(dpa) - Pressure from Turkey has resulted in the removal of a reference to the Armenian genocide from a German school curriculum, reports said Wednesday.
The eastern German state of Brandenburg has eliminated half a sentence on the Armenians included in ninth and tenth grade history classes after a Turkish diplomat complained to state Prime Minister Matthias Platzeck, the newspaper Die Welt reported.
In a chapter entitled "War, Technology and Civilian Populations" the school book text said "for example, the genocide of the Armenians population of Anatolia." That passage has now been removed from school textbooks, the newspaper said.
I first found this via blogrel. An excellent repository of the full details and more can be found at this new blog Yessem. I urge you to go and read it all. I have to say I find this particularly vile that this happened in the week commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz. Standing up for the victims of genocide? What of those lessons learnt? A bitterly ironic question really coming to think of it given that the Armenian genocide took place two decades before the Holocaust. Learning lessons? Not very quickly it seems. Well, I suppose Hitler learnt the lesson.
But there’s quite a contrast here, which is why I am flagging this up. There is no reason to blame modern Turks for what happened as little as it makes sense to blame modern day Germans for the Shoa. That is not what this is about.
What this is about is something very dark indeed. In the scientific study of genocide several stages of the process are identified. The final stage is not, as one might initially assume, the extermination; the final stage is the denial of the extermination. This is what the current Turkish government is doing right now. It is in effect completing the genocidal work of the Young Turks regime.
But there’s quite a contrast here, which is why I am flagging this up. There is no reason to blame modern Turks for what happened as little as it makes sense to blame modern day Germans for the Shoa. That is not what this is about.
What this is about is something very dark indeed. In the scientific study of genocide several stages of the process are identified. The final stage is not, as one might initially assume, the extermination; the final stage is the denial of the extermination. This is what the current Turkish government is doing right now. It is in effect completing the genocidal work of the Young Turks regime.
Labels: Armenia, Germany, history, Turkey
Monday, January 17, 2005
YES, TELEVISION IS RUBBISH
Well, so I went away for a couple of days and “forgot” to take enough work with me, so I had plentiful time to watch the box. It was a fairly sobering experience I can tell you. Here are two samples of what caught my ire:
-Newsnight Review: One of the topic’s was an exhibition of pre-Ottoman Turkish culture. For sure it looked interesting and beautiful and all, but that’s not really the point though. They all just sat around fawning at how great and fanstastic and everything it all was and saying how the “American neocon Christian right” and assorted other baddies should look at this and be ashamed and change course (presumeably because Ossama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein present the continuation of the greatest traditions of Islamic-Turkish civilization; or what?). Anyways, the point I’d have to make about this is that there was a consensus on the whole issue by all the pannelists. I mean what is the point of having a “debate” in which everyone agrees on everything? Ok, so in the age of political correctness I didn’t really expect anyone to say “Yes, the Turks incorporated all the best of the Christian cultures they found in the lands they had newly conquered and then they expelled and exterminated those Christians”; or perhaps more mildly “This show is purely being put on for political reasons to boost Turkey’s drive to enter the European Union by getting it some positive cultural press”.
In sum a pointless programme really.
-Ultimate Force: What on earth was this? Now look, I like a good Army action flick as much as the next guy, but somehow it just got everything wrong: the acting, the politics, the fighting. Actually coming to think of it, that’s a little unfair. All of these aspects were right, but just not quite wholesome yet. It’s like somebody handed in the script and said, “oh, something roughly like this, but I need mor time to finish it”, and the producers said, “Nah, it’ll be fine. Nobody cares to have a good quality British army action series”. Well I would. Disappointing, though like all the above programmes I’ll probably be mindless enough to watch it again at the next opportunity (that being next week).
Well that’s enough moaning for now.
On the plus side . . .
I finally got round to watching the videotaped first part of the BBC2 series on Auschwitz, which I can can so far only recommend; well put together and the dramatisations are sensible instead of their normal habit of distracting from the issue and looking silly at the same time. I’m looking forward to seeing how the series will go from here.
Well, so I went away for a couple of days and “forgot” to take enough work with me, so I had plentiful time to watch the box. It was a fairly sobering experience I can tell you. Here are two samples of what caught my ire:
-Newsnight Review: One of the topic’s was an exhibition of pre-Ottoman Turkish culture. For sure it looked interesting and beautiful and all, but that’s not really the point though. They all just sat around fawning at how great and fanstastic and everything it all was and saying how the “American neocon Christian right” and assorted other baddies should look at this and be ashamed and change course (presumeably because Ossama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein present the continuation of the greatest traditions of Islamic-Turkish civilization; or what?). Anyways, the point I’d have to make about this is that there was a consensus on the whole issue by all the pannelists. I mean what is the point of having a “debate” in which everyone agrees on everything? Ok, so in the age of political correctness I didn’t really expect anyone to say “Yes, the Turks incorporated all the best of the Christian cultures they found in the lands they had newly conquered and then they expelled and exterminated those Christians”; or perhaps more mildly “This show is purely being put on for political reasons to boost Turkey’s drive to enter the European Union by getting it some positive cultural press”.
In sum a pointless programme really.
-Ultimate Force: What on earth was this? Now look, I like a good Army action flick as much as the next guy, but somehow it just got everything wrong: the acting, the politics, the fighting. Actually coming to think of it, that’s a little unfair. All of these aspects were right, but just not quite wholesome yet. It’s like somebody handed in the script and said, “oh, something roughly like this, but I need mor time to finish it”, and the producers said, “Nah, it’ll be fine. Nobody cares to have a good quality British army action series”. Well I would. Disappointing, though like all the above programmes I’ll probably be mindless enough to watch it again at the next opportunity (that being next week).
Well that’s enough moaning for now.
On the plus side . . .
I finally got round to watching the videotaped first part of the BBC2 series on Auschwitz, which I can can so far only recommend; well put together and the dramatisations are sensible instead of their normal habit of distracting from the issue and looking silly at the same time. I’m looking forward to seeing how the series will go from here.
Labels: history, Islam, media, terrorism, Turkey
Monday, December 13, 2004
ALTERNATIVE HISTORY RIDDLE
Well this was an interesting one brought up a couple of days ago: What would have happened if, following the attack on Pearl Harbour, Nazi Germany had declared war not on the US, but on Japan instead?
Well this was an interesting one brought up a couple of days ago: What would have happened if, following the attack on Pearl Harbour, Nazi Germany had declared war not on the US, but on Japan instead?
Labels: history
Thursday, August 14, 2003
WHEN IN DOUBT, INTERVENE MILITARILY With a new era of interventionism or imperialism, or whatever your personal preferred term is, upon us, the questions are becoming more urgent, as to when we should intervene in a sovereign country with military force. In today's Guardian a Kate Hudson -no, not that Kate Hudson- argues that the Kosovo-War set the precedent for illegal US-led attacks on sovereign countries. She is not that far off the mark. But as a diehard supporter of that war I must say that she is very wrong. I�ll leave aside the precise legal arguments, because they should be secondary to questions of security and morality.
I think one of the reasons why people like Hudson and me don�t see eye to eye, is in part a romanticised view of the Cold War era, that completely blanks out the memory of the hot wars at the periphery of that global struggle. Also, it is certainly true that for domestic western Europe it was a time of geopolitical clarity which in a way must seem comforting in hindsight. But this view is hopelessly eurocentric and is simply an attempt to ignore the dilemmas of interventionism versus indifference that we have to deal with in the post-1989 world. Here's Hudson's opener:
The legality of the war against Iraq remains the focus of intense debate - as is the challenge it poses to the post-second-world-war order, based on the inviolability of sovereign states.
Historically this is wrong. This inviolability was inserted into official declaration such as the UN-Charta and it may have held true for Western countries, but beyond there, sovereignty was worth nothing, and both Nato and Warsaw Pact member states violated countries' sovereignty where it was deemed strategically necessary. In any case, if this inviolability was really the basis of order �if there was any order to speak of at all- how would Hudson explain the dozens of wars that have occurred since 1945?
Leaving that aside there is also a question moral goods trade offs to be made. In both cases it was a question of the credibility of the information about the problem at hand. Hudson and her ilk may complain and oppose the intervention in Kosovo and in Iraq because the evidence was ambiguous. But such evidence and arguments are always ambiguous. A quick glance through 20th century history shows that this was the case for example for the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust and and the rampage in Rwanda. In all these cases there was evidence that proved to the outside world what was really going on, but there was also a lot of unclear and contradictory information. In historical hindsight of course we can clearly see that those who warned of grave crimes were right and those who denied or downplayed them were wrong. In Kosovo and perhaps Iraq, hindsight suggests we were wrong. To those who disagree I say, just imagine Milosevic really was about to unleash a fullly fledged genocide upon the Albanians and we just stood aside and did nothing. What that would have done to the grand rhetoric of Nie wieder Auschwitz, that we would never tolerate another Auschwitz in Europe.
In conclusion I would say, that one hundred percent guarantees can not be given in the here and now. We can only make an informed guess. Given the stakes though, it is clearly more prudent to intervene in such unclear cases.
I think one of the reasons why people like Hudson and me don�t see eye to eye, is in part a romanticised view of the Cold War era, that completely blanks out the memory of the hot wars at the periphery of that global struggle. Also, it is certainly true that for domestic western Europe it was a time of geopolitical clarity which in a way must seem comforting in hindsight. But this view is hopelessly eurocentric and is simply an attempt to ignore the dilemmas of interventionism versus indifference that we have to deal with in the post-1989 world. Here's Hudson's opener:
The legality of the war against Iraq remains the focus of intense debate - as is the challenge it poses to the post-second-world-war order, based on the inviolability of sovereign states.
Historically this is wrong. This inviolability was inserted into official declaration such as the UN-Charta and it may have held true for Western countries, but beyond there, sovereignty was worth nothing, and both Nato and Warsaw Pact member states violated countries' sovereignty where it was deemed strategically necessary. In any case, if this inviolability was really the basis of order �if there was any order to speak of at all- how would Hudson explain the dozens of wars that have occurred since 1945?
Leaving that aside there is also a question moral goods trade offs to be made. In both cases it was a question of the credibility of the information about the problem at hand. Hudson and her ilk may complain and oppose the intervention in Kosovo and in Iraq because the evidence was ambiguous. But such evidence and arguments are always ambiguous. A quick glance through 20th century history shows that this was the case for example for the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust and and the rampage in Rwanda. In all these cases there was evidence that proved to the outside world what was really going on, but there was also a lot of unclear and contradictory information. In historical hindsight of course we can clearly see that those who warned of grave crimes were right and those who denied or downplayed them were wrong. In Kosovo and perhaps Iraq, hindsight suggests we were wrong. To those who disagree I say, just imagine Milosevic really was about to unleash a fullly fledged genocide upon the Albanians and we just stood aside and did nothing. What that would have done to the grand rhetoric of Nie wieder Auschwitz, that we would never tolerate another Auschwitz in Europe.
In conclusion I would say, that one hundred percent guarantees can not be given in the here and now. We can only make an informed guess. Given the stakes though, it is clearly more prudent to intervene in such unclear cases.
Labels: defence, global affairs, history, Iraq
