Nick Cohen said the in the Observer that Brian Haw was a "peace protester who was so indifferent to Baathism he was objecting to sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime long before the 2003 war came."
The sanctions served no purpose. Other than to kill people. That's why millions protested.
If the problem was the regime why did they not invade rather than inflict sanctions on innocents?
The sanctions were "the destruction of a society."
The sanctions were ostensibly to contain a regime that had WMD and was a threat and was internally repressive. It had no WMDs was not a threat to us or anyone. It may have been internally repressive but this was not stopped by sanctions.
The sanctions quite obviously harmed people other than Saddam's regime.
Is Cohen indifferent to this?
The sanctions were anti-Semitic genocide.
When Cohen argues that the 2003 war was justified he has to take all the poison of lunacy and finds himself in the ridiculous position of also having to defend the pointless genocidal sanctions.
Cohen himself seems to be indifferent to the suffering in Iraq over the last 15 years that for whatever reason the USA and England have caused.
What cannot be denied by anyone is that the war was built on lies. To deny that the war was built on lies is doublethink. To deny that the war was legally dubious is doublethink. What does Nick Cohen have to say about this?
If the war was about Baathism, why was this never said? Why did they need pathetic lies to justify the invasion and destruction? I call it an invasion and not a liberation, as Cohen no doubt fantasizes that it was.
I can tell Nick Cohen right away and he knows it well anyway that those against the destruction of Iraq were not indifferent to Baathism. The USA government and the UK government were indifferent to Baathism for many years. If they had wanted Saddam Hussein gone they could have had him gone in an instant and also they could have got rid of him very easily in 1991.
The prospects now for a better Iraq after 16 years of Anglo-American onslaught rely upon the country becoming a genuine democracy.
Is the USA genuinely interested in allowing a true democracy with development, and full independence, including socio-economic independence?
The USA's track record on this is not always encouraging.
----------
Cohen also said something like this: that to not want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant is to support genocide, which is strictly speaking not really a logical contention.
(For example, it is obviously possible to disapprove of a genocidal tyrant completely and totally, but to be a principled pacifist who rejects violence as a means of deposing him, seeking to do so only by non-violent means).
I would like to say to Nick Cohen that to want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant by genocide is pure evil.
An example of the debasement of the intellect that originates in a society that deceives itself and has never really valued the intellect anyway.
"Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being."
Simone Weil.
The sanctions served no purpose. Other than to kill people. That's why millions protested.
If the problem was the regime why did they not invade rather than inflict sanctions on innocents?
The sanctions were "the destruction of a society."
The sanctions were ostensibly to contain a regime that had WMD and was a threat and was internally repressive. It had no WMDs was not a threat to us or anyone. It may have been internally repressive but this was not stopped by sanctions.
The sanctions quite obviously harmed people other than Saddam's regime.
Is Cohen indifferent to this?
The sanctions were anti-Semitic genocide.
When Cohen argues that the 2003 war was justified he has to take all the poison of lunacy and finds himself in the ridiculous position of also having to defend the pointless genocidal sanctions.
Cohen himself seems to be indifferent to the suffering in Iraq over the last 15 years that for whatever reason the USA and England have caused.
What cannot be denied by anyone is that the war was built on lies. To deny that the war was built on lies is doublethink. To deny that the war was legally dubious is doublethink. What does Nick Cohen have to say about this?
If the war was about Baathism, why was this never said? Why did they need pathetic lies to justify the invasion and destruction? I call it an invasion and not a liberation, as Cohen no doubt fantasizes that it was.
I can tell Nick Cohen right away and he knows it well anyway that those against the destruction of Iraq were not indifferent to Baathism. The USA government and the UK government were indifferent to Baathism for many years. If they had wanted Saddam Hussein gone they could have had him gone in an instant and also they could have got rid of him very easily in 1991.
The prospects now for a better Iraq after 16 years of Anglo-American onslaught rely upon the country becoming a genuine democracy.
Is the USA genuinely interested in allowing a true democracy with development, and full independence, including socio-economic independence?
The USA's track record on this is not always encouraging.
----------
Cohen also said something like this: that to not want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant is to support genocide, which is strictly speaking not really a logical contention.
(For example, it is obviously possible to disapprove of a genocidal tyrant completely and totally, but to be a principled pacifist who rejects violence as a means of deposing him, seeking to do so only by non-violent means).
I would like to say to Nick Cohen that to want to overthrow a genocidal tyrant by genocide is pure evil.
An example of the debasement of the intellect that originates in a society that deceives itself and has never really valued the intellect anyway.
"Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being."
Simone Weil.